THE SENATE

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, I would like to recognize
the work of Indigenous Engineering Inclusion Inc. This is a company that was
founded and recently launched by two indigenous women, Deanna Burgart and Pamela
Beaudin. Deanna is a member of the Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nation, and
Pamela is Metis, with roots in Île-à-la-Crosse — both from Saskatchewan.

What makes their work important is that they have used their technical
training as engineers to solve engineering problems through an indigenous lens
that respects our sacred relationship with the environment. As they have termed
it, they are "indigeneers."

Ms. Burgart said:

We wanted to create a space where we could be our whole selves all the
time. We could be indigenous, we could be women, we could be engineers and
we could bring that to work and bridge those gaps. Our indigenous
perspective of respect for mother earth, culture, balance is part of who we
are. We want to help blend that.

This company aims to help industry build relationships with indigenous
communities in the lands that fall under proposed development plans. Their
consulting firm will try to work with all parties to find solutions that are
environmentally respectful and responsible and produce the least amount of
waste, with buy-in from both indigenous and industry communities.

Ms. Burgart and Ms. Beaudin hope to change the way things are done with these
industry projects in indigenous communities. Ms. Burgart said we must change " .
. . industry's belief that it just needs to go to communities and give them
information when what's needed is an exchange of information and a willingness
to learn from the communities' understanding of their own territories."

The new company also hopes to get indigenous youth interested and involved in
engineering as a career choice. They hope that having more indigenous youth in
the workplace, making it more diverse and bringing along traditional indigenous
teachings about the environment, will breed innovation.

Honourable senators, I congratulate Ms. Burgart and Ms. Beaudin on the launch
of Indigenous Engineering Inclusion Inc. and their work in building
relationships between indigenous communities and companies interested in
development on indigenous lands.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of Members of the First Nations Major
Projects Coalition: Chief Joseph Bevan, Chair, from the Kitselas First Nation;
Chief Corrina Leween, Member, from the Cheslatta Carrier Nation; Councillor
Angel Ransom, Member, from Nak'azdli Whut'en; Niilo Edwards, Advisor; Del
Nattrass, Financial and Economic Advisor; and Harold Calla, Executive Chair,
First Nations Financial Management Board.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Judith Seidman: Honourable senators, October 31 marks World
Cities Day. Designated by the United Nations, this day aims to promote the
international community's interest in meeting opportunities and addressing
challenges of urbanization, and contributing to sustainable urban development
around the world.

This year's theme is "Inclusive Cities, Shared Development," and I can think
of no better occasion to take a few moments and highlight significant
achievements of my hometown, Montreal.

Starting as a small mission colony of a mere 50 settlers, Montreal has since
become a prominent North American city, a metropolis of over 4 million
inhabitants.

Historical events would mould the city into a beacon of modernity with roots
of intellectual freedom and ambitious large-scale social and political reform.
Montreal quickly became one of the most prominent urban, multicultural,
political and artistic cities within Canada.

My hometown continues to distinguish itself by implementing innovative
policies aimed at enriching life for its citizens while becoming a forerunner in
the world. A recent example is the Community Sustainable Development Plan.
Implemented earlier this year, in collaboration with more than 180 organizations
from all walks of Montreal society, this plan focuses on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, increasing biodiversity and ensuring access to sustainably healthy
neighbourhoods.

These priorities will promote a healthier and more responsible city. It
should come, then, as no surprise to hear that earlier this year, Montreal was
ranked by The Economist's Safe Cities Index as the second-best city in
Canada to live in.

On an international scale, Montreal has managed to position itself as one of
the world's smartest cities. Designed to improve citizens' experiences, boost
tourism and accelerate the city's economic development, the Montréal Smart and
Digital City Action Plan aims to install technology making city services and
systems more efficient, while creating a collaborative ecosystem for business,
institutions and citizens alike.

To celebrate this initiative, Montreal was awarded Intelligent Community of
the Year this past June by New York's Intelligent Community Forum. This
non-profit research organization dedicated to the study of 21st century city
development salutes the accomplishments of Montreal in developing inclusive
prosperity on a foundation of information and communications technology.

Honourable senators, Montreal continues to evolve as a metropolis on the
cutting edge of both the arts and the sciences.

Hon. Richard Neufeld: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute
to an outstanding British Columbian, Michelle Stilwell. Since 2013, Michelle
Stilwell is a member of the Legislative Assembly of B.C. for the riding of
Parksville—Qualicum. She is the Minister of Social Development and Social
Innovation in Premier Clark's government. She is also a mother, wife,
motivational speaker and community advocate. If that isn't enough, she is now a
seven-time Paralympian medallist.

Michelle Stilwell was one of 162 athletes who represented our country this
summer as part of the 2016 Rio Paralympics. Ms. Stilwell won two gold medals in
the 100-metre and 400-metre wheelchair racing. She currently holds a number of
world records, including in the 100-metre and 400-metre distances, in the T52
class.

Her other accomplishments include gold at the Toronto Parapan Am Games in
2015; gold and silver at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012; two more gold
medals in Beijing in 2008; and gold in Sydney in 2000. What is most impressive
is that her Sydney medal is for wheelchair basketball. She is one of the few
athletes who are gold medallists in two different disciplines.

Honourable senators, Michelle's story is one of bravery, strength and
resolve.

(1340)

A few weeks prior to her Grade 12 high school graduation, she was
piggybacking on a friend's back and fell to the ground. Her neck injury rendered
her a quadriplegic. She was 17 years old.

She would later earn a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of
Calgary. She then pursued a career in advocacy work. For example, she served as
ambassador for ActNow BC, a cross-government health promotion initiative that
sought to improve the health of British Columbians, as well as for the Rick
Hansen Foundation. For decades now she has been tirelessly working towards
increasing the employment of persons with disabilities.

Her dedication to serving the public and the greater good eventually led her
to seek office in the provincial legislature, and she is now a provincial
minister.

Honourable senators, like our colleague Senator Petitclerc, Michelle Stilwell
is an inspirational role model for all Canadians, whether they are disabled or
not. Her story is one of determination, courage and empowerment.

I hope you will join me in congratulating Michelle and all the other athletes
and sports staff who participated in the games this summer. They made us all
proud.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Roy Button from Lewisporte,
Newfoundland and Labrador. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Housakos.

Hon. Richard Neufeld, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, presented the following report:

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources has the honour to present its

THIRD REPORT

Your committee was authorized by the Senate on Thursday, March 10, 2016,
to examine and report on the effects of transitioning to a low carbon
economy, as required to meet the Government of Canada's announced targets
for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The committee budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee
were printed in the Journals of the Senate of June 16, 2016. On June
20, 2016, the Senate approved a partial release of $119,143 to the
committee. The report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets, and Administration recommending the release of additional funds is
appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

RICHARD NEUFELD

Chair

(For text of budget, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix,
p. 903.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be
taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator Neufeld, report placed on the Orders of the Day for
consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Acting Leader of the Opposition): My question is
for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and it concerns CETA, our free
trade agreement with the European Union.

Leader, I'm sure we are all breathing a sigh of relief upon hearing this
morning that an agreement was reached in Belgium. However, it is not a done deal
yet. Free trade between Canada and the European Union would deliver tremendous
benefits for our businesses, our workers and their families. For that reason, we
must not take the foot off the gas pedal until this deal is ratified and fully
implemented.

Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us if the Canada-EU
summit has been rescheduled and when CETA will be signed?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): First of
all, I want to thank the honourable senator for her question and continued
interest in this subject, and in particular for her support for the way that the
last 24 hours has evolved. From the tone and the nature of the questions of
yesterday, it is obvious that we are on the cusp but not yet there. There are
actions to be taken within the European Union that are under way. We certainly
all wish that those conclude as now anticipated, and at that point we will have
to await the decisions of governments with respect to the timing of the
signature of the agreement.

I can only anticipate that both sides are eager to do that, to demonstrate to
their respective publics the importance of this agreement, as the honourable
senator's question references, and also the signal that it sends to the world
that two significant international trade units, the European Union and Canada,
can reach an agreement that is the gold standard, that is modern, that is 21st
century in its aspiration and that has the support of its people.

Senator Martin: Thank you, leader. I think we are all most definitely
relieved, but certainly the change of tone is not a change in how dissatisfied
we are with the minister and how she has handled this situation.

However, if, as we all hope, Prime Minister Trudeau and the European
leadership are able to sign this agreement in the coming days, CETA will have to
be reviewed and ratified by the European Parliament. We know there is opposition
to CETA amongst some members of the European Parliament.

What is the government doing to help ensure that our trade agreement with
Europe does not meet additional delay through this next stage as we move toward
ratification?

Senator Harder: I hope that there is an opportunity, once the
agreement has been reached, for all sides to congratulate all of the players,
both those that were involved in the early number of years of this negotiation,
through its ups and downs, and those who have been involved in the recent
conclusion of the agreement.

It would be helpful for this Parliament to signal to the European
parliaments, as well as the European Parliament, the views of this Parliament
with respect to this agreement. I am certain that the Government of Canada will
continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the interests of the Canadian
government and the people of Canada in this agreement are actively pursued as we
deal with our respective ratification processes.

This is one where I think members of Parliament, given the international
relationships that all members of Parliament have, particularly with a number of
the European countries, can be a significant aid to advancing Canada's interest
as colleagues.

Hon. Victor Oh: My question for the Leader of the Government in the
Senate concerns trade. The mandate letter for the Minister of International
Trade mentions expanding trade with large, fast-growing markets, including
China and India. While we have seen movement from this government regarding a
trade deal with China, we have not seen the same with India.

Last year, Canada welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the first
official visit to our country by an Indian Prime Minister in over 40 years. It
appears that any momentum the impact of that visit might have had on the
formation of a free trade agreement between our two countries has unfortunately
been stalled. The most recent round of negotiations was held in March 2015,
under the previous Conservative government.

My question for the government leader is what is the current status of the
negotiations towards a Canada-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership
Agreement?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
the honourable senator for his question and his interest in the Asia region and
Canada's trade expansion. You reference both China and India, and as the senator
is aware, there are a number of new initiatives with respect to advancing the
Canada-China economic relationship.

With respect to India, during the period of less than a year that he's been
Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has, in a number of fora that he has
participated in, had occasion to meet with the Prime Minister of India and
advance the interests of Canada, and the government is actively following up and
pursuing advancing the trade relationship.

I would have to inquire as to the precise status of the bilateral
negotiations. However, I do know they are being actively undertaken.

(1350)

Senator Oh: In 2014, the value of two-way merchandise trade between
Canada and India was about $6.3 billion. In 2015, this rose to almost $8.3
billion, an increase of 29 per cent.

Even with this significant growth, there is even more potential for
opportunities for our businesses if the Liberal government chooses to make free
trade negotiations with India a priority.

Will the federal government commit to seeking another round of negotiations
with India later this year or early next year?

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his question and,
as I said earlier, his ongoing interest in these negotiations.

The precise timing of the next phase is really between the negotiators, and I
couldn't comment as to when that will take place. I know they are under active
advancement, that the priority the government attaches to this agreement, as
other international economic trade agreements, is high, and I would anticipate
announcements in the coming number of months.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Harder, I read today with interest that
the Government of Canada may impose gender quotas on corporate boards if the
number of female directors does not improve. I, of course, welcome this
proactive focus, and I believe that all of Canada's institutions, including this
one, should at some point become gender-equal. We are a little closer to that
today, I think.

I want the government to recognize that diversity is about more than women.
It includes people with disabilities, the LGBTQ community, visible minorities
and Canada's Aboriginal peoples.

In its 2015 report, the Canadian Board Diversity Council found the
representation of women was moving forward. It stands today at 19.5 per cent of
the FP 500 companies.

This is, of course, nowhere near the population share, and we must do
everything we can to move it. However, and in comparison, the rate and pace of
improvement for other groups is glacial: 7.5 per cent for visible minorities,
1.3 per cent for Aboriginals, 1.3 per cent for people with disabilities.

Will the Government of Canada recognize their place, too, on corporate boards
and public institutions and take similar action?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
the honourable senator for her question and her ongoing interest in the issue of
diversity and fairness in all institutions.

The comments made by the responsible minister reflect the government's
priority to this issue in hoping that the private sector will respond because it
is in their interest to have boards that are reflective of both their clients,
their investors and the broader Canadian society. I will leave it to the
judgment of the minister as to whether or not and what the timing of that action
might be.

It is the work of institutions such as the Parliament of Canada, the Senate
of Canada on these issues over the years that has encouraged both public
reporting of diversity representation on boards and private sector companies to
act. I would reference, for all senators, the work done on Senate public bills
with respect to this issue over the last number of years.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: I applaud Minister Bains for talking about
increasing the representation of women on corporate boards. However, leader, I
would like to know what the state of the federal public service is. How many
Aboriginal people, people of colour and women are employed in the federal public
service and also, more importantly, how many deputy ministers are there from
these three communities?

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for her question. This
is an issue that I have had personal interest in as a former Secretary of the
Treasury Board where we began for the first time reporting this data on an
annual basis. As you know, this is self-reporting, so it has the limits of
self-reporting, but nonetheless are important indices of diversity. While I
don't have those figures at my fingertips, I do know they're publicly available
and would be happy to pursue that in response to the honourable senator's
question.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much. I do know how hard you worked on
these issues, but minister, this is 2016. I understand that to date there's not
one deputy minister from the people of colour community. For many, many years,
the Human Rights Committee has been studying this issue, and we have been
continuously asking the federal public service what is happening within the
federal public service to promote people within the federal public service.

More than 50 per cent of the federal public service employees are women, but
they're doing lower-level jobs. They're not in the high-level positions. It
would be important to know that, yes, there are women, but on what level.

Senator Harder: I, of course, will do that. I do want to acknowledge
the significant increase over time, though not yet at the level it should be, I
acknowledge. However, the biggest change in the federal public service has been
representation of women at senior levels of the public service. It is an
institution that is, frankly, ahead of the private sector in this regard as a
result of deliberate strategies to accomplish this.

I will be happy to receive that information. I would also encourage senators
— as I know they have in the past, because I have been the recipient of those
questions — on standing committees with witnesses from the Clerk of the Privy
Council or in review of estimates of various departments, that this question be
asked of those who are actually on the front line delivering these programs and
report on their results because I think that would encourage them.

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, I would like to raise the
issue of the softwood lumber agreement again. I know that Senator Harder has
followed up on this matter. However, people in the forestry industry are very
concerned. The softwood lumber agreement with the United States is causing
concern and uncertainty in the industry.

Before I move on to my question, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge
the leadership of Senator Maltais in launching his inquiry on this matter.

Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the
Senate regarding the failure of the current government in negotiating a new
softwood lumber agreement with the United States. It is incredible. The U.S.
Lumber Coalition recently said in a press release, and I quote:

[English]

With the expiration of the standstill and no agreement attained, the
Coalition has no choice but to move to initiate trade cases against unfairly
traded imports from Canada at the most effective time.

[Translation]

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us whether the government
tried to get assurances from the U.S. government that any trade action proposed
by the Lumber Coalition will be suspended while negotiations are in progress?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I want to
thank the honourable senator for his ongoing interest and questioning on this
important matter. As I have said repeatedly in this chamber, the issue of
softwood lumber is of high importance to the Government of Canada. Predictable
and stable access to the U.S. market is very important for our industry.

It is in pursuit of that that the government is actively engaged in those
negotiations. Both sides have at the highest political level stated their
commitment to achieving a negotiated outcome. That is difficult, as the
honourable senator knows from personal experience and from watching this in the
circumstances of the day, but the government is active. The minister continues
to be personally engaged with her counterparts.

There are elections going on in the United States. I dare say that there are
even politicians there who are exploiting this issue in respect of the interests
of their local lumber interests.

(1400)

It is a challenging environment in which these negotiations are taking place,
but our government is determined to work with the United States government to
achieve a negotiated settlement and to protect and advance the interests of
Canadian producers so that stable and assured access to the U.S. market remains
available to our producers.

Senator Mockler: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question.
The leader has just needled me to ask one.

Prime Minister Trudeau has made much of his relationship with President
Obama. However special it may be, it has not led to a resolution of this matter,
far from it. I want to share this with you: It was the Conservative government
of Stephen Harper that negotiated the previous agreement in April 2006, three
months after forming the government.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Mockler: The previous Conservative government also negotiated
an extension of the agreement in 2012. In contrast, softwood lumber was not
included in Minister Freeland's mandate letter, and softwood lumber was not
mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.

The Liberals promised a deal within 100 days after the Prime Minister's trip
to Washington in February of this year. Those 100 days have passed. Will the
Liberal government self-impose another deadline to actually get the job done?
Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate ensure that the exemption for
Atlantic Canada will be maintained?

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his question. I now
regret needling him, so I apologize.

It's very clear that this issue, by the very question, has been one that is
cyclical in the Canadian experience over a large number of years and many
governments. It has its ups and downs in the context of the well-being of the
sector, the level of exports and the political climate on both sides of the
border.

The Government of Canada continues, as I said earlier, to raise this issue at
the highest level, including in recent visits, and the minister with respect to
her counterparts is continuing to do that. The objectives remain the same, and
we will have to let these negotiations pursue their course. It does take two to
tango.

In the meantime, the Government of Canada is pursuing all of its available
options to protect and advance the interests of Canadians, both Atlantic and
otherwise.

Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: As a supplementary question to the Leader of
the Government, I want to make sure that he is aware that things have changed
since the last time a softwood lumber agreement was negotiated, in that in
British Columbia, many of the major producing mills have become international in
scope and are now operating in the U.S. as well as in Canada, so they may not be
pressuring the government to solve this issue.

However, we have many small- and medium-sized companies in the forest
industry in British Columbia that are in critical shape. Should this softwood
lumber agreement not be renewed, many thousands of jobs will be lost. It will be
devastating for many communities, especially in the interior of British
Columbia.

Can the leader assure me that the Minister of International Trade understands
that they must listen to the voices of small- and medium-sized lumber producers
in British Columbia?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Harder: I can indeed assure the honourable senator that the
minister is well aware of and dedicated to pursuing the interests of small- and
medium-sized companies and all producers of softwood lumber in Canada. As I said
earlier, security and stable access and predictability are key.

The honourable senator asked a question with respect to my own experience. I
had the pleasure of being on the board of the largest private sector land
holding of forests in British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, and have some
acquaintance with how the markets have changed in this regard. They do change
the nature of the dynamics of the negotiations because, as was referenced, the
producers have changed places in some respects with where their business
interests lie.

Hon. Thanh Hai Ngo: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader
of the Government in the Senate. Human rights advocacy groups say that there are
over 100 known political prisoners in Vietnam. Two of them, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai
and Ms. Nguyen Quynh, were jailed for promoting democracy and universal human
rights in Vietnam.

Nguyen Van Dai is a well-known lawyer. He was arrested in December 2015 for
holding a workshop on the promotion of human rights in Vietnam. Nguyen Quynh is
an internationally known blogger who advocates for civil rights in the face of
environmental disaster. She was arrested in early October. Both activists were
charged under article 88 of the Vietnamese criminal code for spreading
propaganda against the state just because they publicly and peacefully expressed
opposition to the government's policies.

On Monday, in response to these events, more than 73 parliamentarians from 14
different countries, including Cambodia, Chad, the United States, Indonesia,
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Nepal, and Portugal, signed an open letter to the
Prime Minister of Vietnam calling for the immediate and unconditional release of
Nguyen Van Dai and Nguyen Quynh.

What measures will the Canadian government take in response to these grave
human rights violations in Vietnam?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
the honourable senator for his question and his ongoing interest in human
rights, in particular human rights in Asia.

There are, as he refers to, serious situations in a number of countries. The
raising of issues in Vietnam is one that the government is well aware of, seized
with and does raise at the appropriate level in bilateral relations and indeed
in multilateral fora such as with the Human Rights Commission.

I will take the particular case that you reference and bring it to the
attention of the minister and appropriate officials. As the question itself
refers to the important work being done by parliamentarians in regard to human
rights issues in their own advocacy of human rights promotion through bilateral
and multilateral fora, in which parliamentarians participate, this too is
important.

[Translation]

Senator Ngo: I have a supplementary question. Following his trip to
Cambodia and Vietnam last September, Minster Stéphane Dion stated that Canada
had made a long-term commitment in South East Asia. Since then, groups or
individuals working to promote democracy in Vietnam have been labelled as
terrorists by the Communist Party of Vietnam.

What is the Government of Canada's reaction to this change in the human
rights situation in Vietnam since Minister Dion's visit?

[English]

Senator Harder: Again, I will have to inquire on the specifics of the
question that the honourable senator raises, but I want to take the occasion to
repeat the ongoing interests of the Government of Canada in the advancement of
human rights internationally and in the context of bilateral engagement. Simply
ensuring that we have an active engagement with the region on a wide variety of
aspects of the relationship does not diminish our ability to raise human rights
issues. Human rights issues are part of our engagement, but they also need to be
put in the context of ongoing, active and sustained efforts of engagement.

Hon. Daniel Lang: Colleagues, I would like to move on to a different
subject, if I could, and that's the question of the situation in the Middle East
and the fact that the situation in Syria and Iraq is coming to some degree to a
conclusion in respect to the ongoing bombings taking place and the fact that
Mosul is coming under attack by the government troops in conjunction with their
allies.

The concern I want to raise, which is a concern not only here but also in
Europe, Australia and other countries, that there is more and more reason to
believe that individuals — Canadians — who have been radicalized, have gone from
this country and been involved in terrorist activity will be returning to
Canada.

Today there was a report that was released in the National Post about
the flood of foreign fighters who will evolve around the world and come back to
the countries of their origin, and that includes Canada.

The authorities have identified well over 200 Canadians who have been
involved in one manner or another with terrorism activities outside this
country.

My question is this, and I think most Canadians would question this: What are
the authorities going to do with these individuals who are coming back to Canada
and who are going to cause our public security to be at risk? My question,
Senator Harder, to you and government, is what are we going to do in respect to
these individuals in view of the fact that it is against the law to be involved
in terrorism activities.

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank
the honourable senator for his question, and I would like to respond by saying
that the appropriate authorities in Canada are very cognizant, as you would
expect, of this situation and are actively preparing for and engaging their
organizations in dealing with the potential challenges that you raise.

I do think it would be imprudent to speak extensively on how that might take
place, but I would like to assure the honourable senator and, through the
Senate, all Canadians, that the appropriate authorities are well seized of this
issue so that the security and well-being of Canadians continues to be supported
and vigilantly attended to even in these evolving circumstances.

Senator Lang: Colleagues, I think that most Canadians would expect
that these Canadians, who have turned their back on our country and have now
decided to come back to this country after being actively involved in acts of
terrorism, should be seriously considered to be charged. I would like the
senator's comment on that, but I would also like to ask this question: Do the
authorities have enough resources for the purpose of the surveillance that will
be required on these individuals in view of the fact that in most cases they
will probably have to have surveillance 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Do we
have resources to do that?

Senator Harder: With respect to the resources, the honourable senator
will know there has been an augmentation of resources to the respective
organizations involved in this matter. I am certain that those organizations
are, as they continually will be, reviewing their resource levels determining
whether and how those resources are being effectively used and whether more
resources are required. There is an ongoing review of that in the context of
budget preparation, and I would expect that's under way at this time.

I would also like to emphasize that the Government of Canada remains vigilant
to ensuring that appropriate prosecution takes place and does so in the best
interests of Canada at the time and circumstance that best protects our
interests.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-6, An Act
to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another
Act.

Hon. André Pratte: Thank you, Your Honour.

I rise today to express my support for Bill C-6. I support this bill because
it will enable Canada to do a better job of fighting terrorism. Yes, it will
help us do a better job of fighting terrorism.

I also support Bill C-6 because it restores certain practices that were part
of Canada's long-standing tradition of welcoming immigrants, a tradition that
has made Canada the country it is today, an open-arms policy that ensures
Canada's future success.

Two years ago, Bill C-24 made it possible for Canadian citizens holding dual
citizenship and found guilty of terrorism, treason or espionage to have Canadian
citizenship revoked. The government that passed the act considered that to be a
fair punishment befitting the severity of the crime. The government also saw it
as a way to keep Canadians safe and combat the jihadist threat. In my opinion,
those arguments do not hold water.

Ultimately, revoking terrorists' citizenship means sending them back to
another country. Once they leave Canada, unless they leave to a closely allied
country, we will have no way of efficiently tracking them. Will they join a
terrorist cell? Will they plot against Canadian interests abroad? Will they
attack one of our embassies or consulates? Will they attack Canadian workers or
tourists? The fact is they will have one more reason to despise Canada, and we
will have fewer ways than ever to protect ourselves from them.

We will also be forsaking our responsibility to the international community
with respect to fighting terrorism because we will be setting terrorists free
instead of keeping a close watch on them. Fighting terrorism is about more than
protecting ourselves because terrorism is a global threat. Fighting terrorism is
a collective responsibility, and each state must play its part. By sending
terrorists abroad, we are shirking our share of that responsibility.

Those who would frame the Bill C-6 debate as a conversation about keeping
Canadians safe do not have a sound argument.

Another hotly debated aspect of this issue is the equal status of citizens.
Why should Canadian citizens who carry another nationality be penalized much
more severely by losing their Canadian citizenship than those who have only
Canadian nationality? Some argue that if they commit an act of terrorism,
treason or espionage, they are violating the terms of the contract with their
adoptive country. Perhaps, but what of Canadians born here? Is their crime any
less serious? No. So why should they be punished less severely? Simply because
under international law they cannot be stripped of their citizenship and
rendered stateless.

Therefore, the only reason that dual citizens found guilty of such crimes can
be stripped of their Canadian citizenship is that international law allows it,
whereas doing so to other Canadians is forbidden. Just because international law
allows some people to be stripped of their citizenship but not others does not
make it fair or Canadian to do so.

[Translation]

Bill C-24 added the requirement that prospective Canadian citizens declare
their intent to continue living in Canada once granted citizenship. This
requirement has no known practical outcome. Could a new citizen having moved
abroad for a job be stripped of their citizenship for having made a fraudulent
declaration? The previous government's responses on this subject were very
confusing. It is not surprising that this new requirement also caused a great
deal of confusion among prospective citizens, who had the impression that they
were losing their right to free movement, which is a right guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They felt they were being treated like
second-class citizens.

(1420)

[English]

It has been said that the intent to reside was a symbolic declaration. Well,
wait a minute. Here you are, a permanent resident, filling in an application to
become a Canadian citizen. Your prospective country is asking you to declare
officially whether or not you intend to reside in your new country after being
granted citizenship. The application form does not say this is a purely symbolic
declaration. This is an official form. Surely honest persons will think twice
before answering yes because they know that life circumstances could very well
change and have them move from Canada to study or to work for a lengthy period
of time.

If they did, would they be accused of having made a fraudulent declaration?
Would they be able to say in their defence that it was purely symbolic?

[Translation]

We have heard that the goal is to prevent people from obtaining citizenship
only to turn around and leave the country, in other words, to deter potential
citizens of convenience. Apparently, some people who have no desire to stay in
the country are becoming citizens. I would like to know who does that. How many
of these false citizens are there?

According to the latest government statistics, 132 people had their
citizenship revoked in 2015 on all grounds. Is it wise to deprive thousands of
new Canadians of their freedom of movement, or at the very least cause them to
worry, just because a few dozen people allegedly cheated the system in order to
become citizens of convenience?

In my opinion, there are other ways to prevent fraud than depriving new
citizens of their fundamental rights. The Canadian government has used those
methods in the past and is still using them. In fact, Bill C-24 included various
measures in that regard and Bill C-6 deals with them.

Take for example the citizenship consultant regulations, the redefined
residency criteria and the increased sentences for fraud.

[English]

Some claim that Canadian citizenship is a privilege. It is not for me. I was
born here. It's a right. It can't be taken away from me, and I fully enjoy all
the rights that come with it.

According to that view, citizenship would only be a privilege for those who
hold dual citizenship or who acquire Canadian citizenship. Therefore, there
clearly would be two classes of Canadians; people born outside of Canada who
acquire citizenship later in life would be second-class Canadians. For them,
citizenship would not be a right but a favour since they would not enjoy the
same mobility rights as others. I am appalled that anyone would suggest such a
thing, even symbolically.

Bill C-6 restores the former residency requirement for further residents
seeking to become citizens. It would be shortened from four of the previous six
years to three of the previous five years. Why go back to the way it was? There
was no reason to fix what was not broken. Does anyone think that the three-year
requirement prevented Canada from welcoming millions of immigrants who became
model Canadian citizens and contributed tremendously to making our country what
it is today?

We scoured the debates of the previous Parliament. The government offered no
sound argument or study to justify increasing the residency requirement from
three to four years. It was totally arbitrary. Restoring the three-year
requirement is justified on the basis of Canada's long history of successful
immigration.

[Translation]

Finally, I would like to talk about the requirement to have a basic knowledge
of Canada and official languages. Bill C-24 imposed these requirements on people
aged 14 to 64. The new bill, Bill C-6, changes that age range back to 18 to 54.
I support that decision regarding young people. Most young people go to school,
where they have the opportunity to learn more about Canada and they are taught
French and English. Subjecting them to additional citizenship tests therefore
seems unnecessary to me.

My reservations have to do with the 55 to 64 age group. These individuals are
hardly what you would call seniors; rather, they are in the prime of their
lives. However, we need to take into account how hard it is to learn a language
as an adult. Anyone in this chamber who has tried to learn English or French at
the age of 50 knows how difficult it is.

Can any of us imagine arriving in a new country at 57 or 58, penniless, with
a family to feed, and having to work tirelessly to earn a living, all without
speaking a word of English or French?

Obviously, we need to do everything we can to help these individuals get by
in one of our official languages. Are we really helping them by placing
obstacles on their path to citizenship?

[English]

Besides, the number of persons concerned is small, only 8 per cent of
citizenship applications are made by persons aged 55 to 60 years old. Does
Canada gain anything from depriving those people of age of Canadian citizenship?
How does that help integrate them into Canadian society?

Some Conservative senators have objected to repealing a law just passed on
the grounds that it would result in needless expense. In response, Liberal
senators cite the election victory. This is not about pitting one party against
the other. The question is which policy is better? Which policy makes it easier
to integrate immigrants? Which policy enables Canada to fight terrorism most
effectively, not only here at home, but around the world?

Some amendments Bill C-24 made to the Citizenship Act were unjustified. Bill
C-6 corrects those ill-founded amendments, and that is why we must pass it. That
being said, there is a major flaw in this bill, a flaw that the Minister of
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship acknowledged but was unable to correct in
the other place.

Currently individuals whose citizenship is revoked have no recourse other
than writing to the official who made the decision to state their case. Such
individuals have no right to be heard or to see all the evidence against them.
That makes no sense, particularly when something as serious as loss of
citizenship is at stake. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm willing to bet that is
against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so the flaw must be
corrected. Not having the right to a hearing is all the more egregious in light
of the fact that permanent residents who lose status have a right to appeal. I
hope the chamber finds a solution to this problem.

Apart from that reservation, honourable senators, I believe Bill C-6 is in
keeping with the tradition of welcoming new immigrants upheld by both major
political parties represented here and by all honourable senators in this
chamber. This tradition has made Canada one of the most generous and prosperous
adoptive homelands on the planet. That's why I support Bill C-6 and invite you
to do so as well.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Linda Frum (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Will the
senator accept a question?

Senator Pratte: Of course.

Senator Frum: On the matter of citizenship of convenience, you asked
how many people this might apply to. The answer was perhaps a few dozen. Do you
recall in 2006, during the Lebanon war, how many Canadians requested rescue from
the Canadian government? The answer, if you don't recall, is 15,000 at a cost of
$100 million. In light of that, do you really think this is a trivial problem?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Pratte: That was one case, right? That was one case.

Senator Frum: Fifteen thousand cases.

Senator Pratte: I know but that was one case. Many things have changed
since then.

Senator Runciman: The law changed.

Senator Pratte: These were Canadians who lived in Canada for an
unspecified time period. We don't know how long they had been living in Lebanon
or how long they lived in Canada. They might have lived in Canada for years and
years and then been in Lebanon for one or two years. We don't know anything
about those people. We don't know whether they are citizens of convenience or
not. We know they were living in Lebanon at that time. They might have been
living in Canada for 10 years before that.

Many measures have been taken since then to prevent that kind of problem.
Many measures included in Bill C-24 were good measures that have been kept by
Bill C-6. Those measures I approve of, and they have been kept by Bill C-6.

(1430)

I don't disapprove of everything that was in Bill C-24, but some things I
disapprove of, and some are ill-founded and are corrected by Bill C-6.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Senator, I have question.

Senator Pratte: Of course.

Senator Plett: First of all, Senator Pratte, let me tell you I
entirely agree with you when you say there is a major flaw in this bill. We
certainly are on the same page. I would suggest there are a few major flaws in
this bill.

The revoking of citizenship and dual citizenship is because of terrorism. It
is not because of a light crime of some kind. It is because of terrorism toward
our country.

You, and even the minister, suggested that it is better for us to have those
people in Canadian jails rather than to set them free, but who is suggesting we
set them free? We're talking about taking away dual citizenship. Why can't we
take away dual citizenship if they have committed an act of terror against our
country? We can still keep them in jail.

Why put one against the other, suggesting that if we take away their
citizenship, we're required to send them back to their country? We're not
required to send them back to their country if they have committed a crime
against our country. We can take away their citizenship and keep them in jail.
Is that not correct?

The Hon. the Speaker: Excuse me, Senator Pratte. Your time has
expired. Are you asking for an additional five minutes?

Senator Pratte: I would like to answer that one. Yes, please.

The Hon. the Speaker: Agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Pratte: Honourable senator, then I don't understand the
purpose. Yes, of course the idea is to have them in jail, as I understand it,
and once their jail sentence is over, to send them away. That's why you would
take away their citizenship, isn't it?

Senator Plett: Right.

Senator Pratte: Right. My point is that once you send them away, you
have less control over them than if you keep them in Canada. If you take an
Iranian citizen —

Senator Tkachuk: Come on.

Senator Pratte: Okay. Let's say you have someone who is both a
Canadian and an Iranian. You keep them in jail for 10 years. When their sentence
is over, you send them back to Iran. You have more control in Iran than you have
in Canada? You will know what that person is doing in Iran more than if he or
she stays in Canada?

Senator Runciman: He's out of the country.

Senator Pratte: He's out of the country. That's how you take your
share of responsibility for international terrorism? He's out of the country;
get rid of him. That's how you take your share of international responsibility?
That's not the way I see it.

Senator Plett: You are asking me a question now.

The Hon. the Speaker: Excuse me, Senator Plett. Senator Pratte asked
for time to respond to that question.

Senator Pratte, are you asking for further time to respond to more questions?

Senator Pratte: I'm ready. The house decides.

Senator Martin: You need to ask.

Senator Plett: He said he's ready.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Pratte, did you say "no?"

Senator Pratte: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators, five more
minutes?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: No.

Senator MacDonald: Free speech!

The Hon. the Speaker: No? We need unanimous consent.

An Hon. Senator: Raise the question.

Senator Plett: You set a precedent!

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Ringuette is rising to adjourn the
debate.

Hon. Douglas Black moved second reading of Bill C-13, An Act to amend
the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Radiation Emitting
Devices Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Pest Control
Products Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and to make related
amendments to another Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to
speak about Bill C-13. Let me give you an executive summary. I have a
presentation in front of me, but as you can tell, that was the short title I
read. I think it would be useful if I just gave it an executive summary so that
people understand what it is we're addressing here.

Under the World Trade Organization, of which Canada is a signatory, they have
negotiated over the last 10 years something called the Trade Facilitation
Agreement. That agreement is what allows the World Trade Organization to do the
job that they set out to do.

Canada wishes to ratify the Trade Facilitation Agreement. There are 164
members of the WTO. We require 110 countries to signify that they ratify it. We
are currently at 94, so we're almost there.

Canada has not ratified this agreement as yet, but you need to know that all
of our major allies, including the U.K., the U.S., China and Japan, have
ratified this agreement. Canada is taking the position that it is time that we
did so as well.

While the speech will go into frankly numbing detail about some of these
amendments, I just want to give you the two headlines so you can focus on what
we will be asked to do here over the next number of days.

Canada is, principally, 90 per cent in alignment with the Trade Facilitation
Agreement, as you would expect from a major industrialized country. There are
two areas where Canada is not in alignment, and that's what this piece of
legislation deals with.

Number one, the Canada Border Services Agency, on behalf of Health Canada,
will be allowed to dispose of rejected goods that do not meet certain health and
technical requirements, in lieu of allowing importers to return the goods to the
exporter. Something comes to Canada, should not be in Canada, and rather than
saying, "Importer, you return it," and losing control of what happens there,
Canada Border Services Agency will have the authority to destroy those goods.

Second, Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada will exempt
certain goods in transit for the requirement to comply with Canadian technical
regulations, provided that certain conditions are met where necessary. The
bottom line: We must allow goods in transit from, for example, Halifax to
Vancouver and onward to China, subject to our health, safety and environmental
regulations. That's what this is all about.

You also need to know, by way of introduction, that this legislation, with
one minor amendment dealing with electronic labelling that I could bore you to
death about but I won't, passed unanimously in the house, and it is here now for
our consideration and then on to committee.

Senators, that's what we're talking about here, two very technical minor
amendments to allow the Trade Facilitation Agreement to be ratified by Canada.

We all know, particularly with the excellent questions from the deputy leader
today, that we're on the cusp, one hopes, of having CETA approved. Canada is
built on trade. Anything that facilitates trade has been and will continue to be
good for the Canadian economy.

As we know — and certainly as I know as both a senator and a lawyer — the
importance of open and predictable trade is a transformative economic force. A
balanced and open rules-based system for international trade creates new export
opportunities and drives productivity by lowering costs.

We need to know that the OECD and the World Trade Organization have estimated
that when all the countries ratify this agreement, trade will increase by $1
trillion a year and the expense of doing trade, for major countries such as
Canada, will drop by 14 per cent.

Closer to home, trade benefits Canadian producers, manufacturers, exporters,
investors and consumers. Trade facilitation is a simplification, harmonization
and standardization of the customs controls governing the movement of goods
across national borders.

It will be a particular benefit, I have been advised — and I accept this
advice — to small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. While we're
streamlining our import and our facilitation around trade arrangements in
Canada, let's not lose sight that so are 110 other countries around the world.
That's going to provide a tremendous opportunity for, principally, small and
medium-sized businesses in Canada to benefit.

(1440)

As I have indicated, the WTO estimates the Trade Facilitation Agreement will
reduce trade costs, averaging over 14 per cent globally, including reductions of
over 17 per cent for the least-developed countries. The high cost of complying
with complex customs procedures affects small and medium-sized enterprises —
SMEs —more than larger firms, as they don't have the necessary resources to deal
with those challenges — for example, by hiring customs brokers.

Similarly, complex and unpredictable customs procedures hinder trade between
developing countries. Simplifying customs procedures will lower trade costs and
enhance timeliness and predictability in the delivery of intermediate goods.
This will help drive the growing participation of SMEs and traders in developing
countries in world trade and global value chains.

The TFA is also expected to help reduce corruption. Let me explain.

Opportunities to engage in fraudulent practices at international borders
increase with wait times and non-automated procedures. Those who have done any
business in countries outside the OECD undoubtedly have experience around this
very type of activity, where goods get held in ports for extended periods of
time until certain concessions are made.

By simplifying trade procedures, automating customs processes and reducing
the time taken for goods to clear customs, the TFA, it is hoped, will decrease
the instance of trade-related corruption.

Furthermore, more effective customs procedures will allow developing
countries to ensure the proper collection of customs duties, which for some is
an important source of governmental revenues and a key element of what the
Sustainable Development Goals call Domestic Resource Mobilization.

Now I would like to talk quickly about the organization that made the TFA
happen: the World Trade Organization. I am going to simplify here, though. The
World Trade Organization is the multilateral organization based in Geneva whose
role is to build and facilitate mechanisms to achieve global trade. I think
honourable senators know that generally, and I will not take the time of this
chamber to explain that to folks.

I have also indicated that 110 members need to ratify. We are at 94, and the
Government of Canada has committed to have this ratified, if possible, by the
end of 2016.

That is why we want to move this forward now. I'm available for questions. I
hope the summary that I provided early on simplified the task that is being done
here.

I can assure you that all of the organizations in Canada — the seed
organizations, executives, wheat boards, all organizations who are involved in
trade in Canada — are supportive of this legislation.

I would also assure you that I have been assured that there is nothing in
this legislation that adversely affects the health, safety or environment of
Canada; all legislation and regulations in that regard remain intact. Canada is
committed to making the world more prosperous and helping the poorest and most
vulnerable reap the poverty-reduction benefits of international trade.

Canada can do its part by ratifying the TFA as quickly as possible. I would
urge all senators to support the legislative amendments that have been put
before you today, contained in Bill C-13, which will enable Canada to ratify the
TFA and join the other countries that have done so to date.

Hon. Joseph A. Day (Leader of the Senate Liberals): Just an
interesting point, if the honourable senator would take a question.

Senator Black: Of course.

Senator Day: I was listening to all the different acts that are being
amended by this, and I noticed that the short title, after naming six or seven
different acts, reads "and to make related amendments to another Act."

If you told us there are six or seven acts, why would you not have told us
what the other act was?

Senator Black: Thank you very much for the question, senator. I wanted
to be respectful of your time —

Senator Tkachuk: It's okay, Senator Black; you don't have to.

Senator Black: — but I certainly can provide that information —

Senator Tkachuk: That's good.

Senator Plett: We're good with that. Thank you for that answer.

Senator Black: Are you sure?

Perhaps I could provide this answer to you and provide it to the chamber.

Senator Day: I would be pleased with that.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Senator Day's
question encourages me to ask this question: Any time we have many acts listed
and we make an amendment to one, we wonder how it will impact the other acts and
how all of that is well coordinated. Can you give us assurance that it has been
thoroughly and carefully cross-referenced, checked and double-checked that
there will not be unintended consequences and gaps because of amendments made in
this act, which then affect other acts?

Senator Black: Thank you, honourable senator, for that question. I
will give you that assurance. I have asked that question myself, because I don't
like the concept of omnibus bills; I never have. When I have been briefed by
officials, I have indicated that I want their assurance that the bill they are
endeavouring to address addresses the bill but nothing else.

I can only assure you, senator, that I have asked for that assurance and I
have been provided it. I have read the legislation — I read it as a lawyer, not
as a senator — and to me it looks like they have focused surgically on what
needed to be done. That is what I have asked and that is what I have been told.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Would you accept another question?

Senator Black: Of course.

Senator Dyck: I noticed in your speech that you mentioned the Canada
Border Services Agency, and I started to wonder what types of products would be
destroyed or disposed of in Canada as opposed to being shipped back to the
country of origin — for example, if it was illegal drugs or foods.

Senator Black: Not only have you asked an excellent question, but you
have provided the answer. It principally relates to pharmaceuticals, illegal
drugs and pesticides, as I have been advised.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Will you take a question, senator?

Senator Black: Of course.

Senator Moore: The Food and Drugs Act is part of this bill. I can't
remember from earlier this week; does that include the matter of naming the
quantities of salt and sugar in our products? Is that in this bill?

Senator Black: Not to the best of my understanding, senator, but I
will check that.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Unless I'm mistaken, we have an issue that
has been happening too many times today. The issue is to recognize a senator and
for the senator to be able to raise questions, adjourn motions and debates and
so forth when he or she is not sitting in their Senate seat. I think this issue
needs to be, if not clarified, at least some direction should be provided by
you, Your Honour, with regard to its appropriateness in accordance with our
proceedings.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Ringuette. In the present
case, this is a government bill. Senator Frum asked for adjournment of the
debate in Senator Andreychuk's name; however, it will not be adjourned in
anyone's name because it is a government bill. I take your point with respect to
other matters, and it will be discussed at a later date. Thank you.

Hon. Linda Frum (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): You received
a letter today stating that I am the Acting Deputy Leader for the Opposition.
That letter was sent to you earlier this morning. So in her role, I am sitting
in place of the opposition deputy leader.

(1450)

The Hon. the Speaker: I understand that, Senator Frum. Ordinarily, if
it wasn't a government bill, it would be adjourned in somebody's name. But this
is a government bill and it won't be adjourned in anybody's name.

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative
in the Senate), pursuant to notice of October 26, 2016, moved:

That, in order to allow the Senate to receive a Minister of the Crown
during Question Period as authorized by the Senate on December 10, 2015, and
notwithstanding rule 4-7, when the Senate sits on Tuesday, November 1, 2016,
Question Period shall begin at 3:30 p.m., with any proceedings then before
the Senate being interrupted until the end of Question Period, which shall
last a maximum of 40 minutes;

That, if a standing vote would conflict with the holding of Question
Period at 3:30 p.m. on that day, the vote be postponed until immediately
after the conclusion of Question Period;

That, if the bells are ringing for a vote at 3:30 p.m. on that day, they
be interrupted for Question Period at that time, and resume thereafter for
the balance of any time remaining; and

That, if the Senate concludes its business before 3:30 p.m. on that day,
the sitting be suspended until that time for the purpose of holding Question
Period.

She said: I just want to let you know that for the next Question Period we
will receive the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Dominic
LeBlanc.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Martin, for the second reading of Bill S-224, An
Act respecting payments made under construction contracts.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, yesterday I took the
adjournment of this bill. I endorsed the principal of the bill, and I haven't
had a chance to put my remarks together, but I will be making a speech next week
on this. I adjourn for the balance of my time.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga, for the second reading of Bill
S-221, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Property qualifications
of Senators).

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, those of you who were here
yesterday know that I began my speech on this bill, but I was interrupted. I had
to stop at 4 p.m., as is the convention on Wednesdays.

Bill S-221 is one half of a whole. The other half is Motion No. 73, also
moved by Senator Patterson. I want to thank him again for his patience in
waiting six months to hear me speak to these two initiatives.

[English]

There are, as I said yesterday, constitutional amendments that taken together
would eliminate the real property qualification for senators. It is important
and it cannot be overstressed that these bills have nothing to do with the
general residency requirement for senators.

If these measures were adopted, we would all still have to be resident in the
provinces we represent. These have to do with the real property qualification,
the constitutional rule that says we must have $4,000 worth of real property in,
for most of us, the province or territory that we represent.

I might add that a happy by-product of Senator Patterson's initiative is that
it would clarify the declaration of qualification that we are all required to
make when we first come to this place. That is that long thing where we say:

He shall be legally or equitably seized as of Freehold for his own Use
and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, —

I don't even know how to pronounce these words.

— or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefits of Lands or
Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture . . . .

And on and on and on.

First prize to anybody who knows what those words mean. Senator Patterson's
proposal is that we replace that incomprehensible statement with a simple
statement that says that I, name of senator, do declare and testify that I am by
law duly qualified to be appointed a member of the Senate of Canada.

How admirable. This is all the more reason for me to congratulate Senator
Patterson on trying to take all these bulls by the horns and make some progress.

We were talking about constitutional amendments, and the first obvious
question when one is considering constitutional amendments is whether Parliament
has the authority, the jurisdiction to do this, to make the proposed changes.

The answer, colleagues, is yes and no. The answer is that according to the
Supreme Court of Canada, Parliament acting alone under section 44 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, can make this specific change, eliminating the real
property qualification for all provinces and territories except Quebec.

It is not a minor exception. We're talking about nearly a quarter of the
country with unique historical and cultural needs and requirements.

In Quebec, the Constitution says that senators are appointed to represent
specific divisions. We, Quebec senators, are the only senators who by law must
represent a specific division. Other senators may choose, and some do, to say
that they represent Kingston and the Islands or whatever they choose as their
personal expression of identity.

In our case, we are by law, under the Constitution, appointed for specific
territorial divisions.

The divisions in question are, to put it mildly, greatly out of date. If
memory serves, they refer to the electoral districts that existed in Lower
Canada in about 1864. And you can imagine the population shifts that have
occurred since then, not to mention the extension of the borders of Quebec since
then, and none of the divisions include the territory that has been added since
1867. But they are there, and they were put there for a real reason, because
Quebec is the primary home of Canada's largest minority, the francophone
French-speaking citizens of this country.

And within that minority there is another minority, the anglophone minority
in Quebec. Both of those groups at the time of Confederation had legitimate
concerns that under the new regime we were setting up they might be swamped in
this place, even though the Senate's whole function and purpose in the minds of
the Fathers of Confederation was not only to provide sober second thought but to
represent regional interests.

So the solution that was found was these divisions. They mattered. They were
a key part of the deal for my province of Quebec.

(1500)

That is why, in its landmark ruling two years ago, the Supreme Court of
Canada said that the real property qualification cannot be abolished in the case
of Quebec without a parallel resolution of the National Assembly.

Now, there is a little hitch here. If we only abolish the real property
qualification, the Constitution also says — and again, this is a unique
circumstance for Quebec — that we must either have our $4,000 real property in
the division we represent or we must live in that division.

If you take away the real property qualification and don't fix the rest of
it, then we are going to face heavy moving expenses, may I suggest, because many
senators from Quebec do not and have not historically resided in the divisions
they represented any more than MPs always reside in the constituencies that they
represent. But there we are; we're stuck with it.

Senator Patterson's motion sets out that for Quebec both of those
requirements would disappear, and we would, as Quebec senators, then face only
the requirements that apply to all senators, namely, that we must reside in the
province we represent rather than being tied to a specific division.

Now, anybody who has listened to me go on and on about this over the years
knows that I thoroughly support what is being attempted here. Like most of us, I
think the real property qualification is an embarrassment, an archaism. We
should get rid of it, but there is a problem. For Quebec, for the particular
initiative to take effect in Quebec, it would, as I said, require resolutions of
the Senate, of the House of Commons and of the National Assembly of Quebec.

This bilateral portion of the amending formula in the Constitution of Canada
has not been used that often since it took effect in 1982, but there are some
precedents. It was used, for example, to change denominational school provisions
in the Constitution in both Newfoundland and Quebec. It was used when
Newfoundland changed its name to Newfoundland and Labrador, so we know it can
work.

However, I think there is a key point here. It is my understanding that
before the resolutions were presented in the Senate or the House of Commons or
the relevant provincial legislature, there had been mutual agreement to proceed.
There is no evidence before us that the Government of Quebec would be in
agreement with this change, and it is my view that we should have that assurance
before we proceed.

Colleagues will recall that constitutional matters carry perhaps more
sensitivity in Quebec than in some portions of the country. I have no reason to
believe that there would be any inherent objection on the part of the Government
of Quebec to these changes, but you never know. It would be important, in my
view, for us to ascertain formally in writing whether the Government of Quebec
believed this was an appropriate course for us to take.

That assurance could be sought by Senator Patterson himself. It could be
sought by the Speaker, but I think it would be very important for us to have
that before we proceed because this is a constitutional provision that affects
Quebec. So who are we to shove it down Quebec's throat without at first at least
trying to achieve agreement on it?

Now, this position of mine raises another question that was put to me by one
of my most respected colleagues the other day: Why would you hold the rest of
the country back from such a desirable change if there is only one province that
needs what I consider to be the special essential consultation? My answer to
that is simple. It's because we are a country. We are one country, and it is our
job, perhaps more in this chamber than anywhere else, to treat each other and to
treat all parts of our country with respect and fairness and equal
consideration.

If we pass the bill for the nine provinces and three territories but not the
motion — there is motion for resolution — that would, as Senator Patterson
eloquently suggested, eliminate a truly archaic form of discrimination that
exists in those nine provinces and three territories. However, I suggest to you
that it would create a new discrimination between my province and the rest of
the country. Without participation of the Government of the National Assembly of
Quebec, suddenly we would be the only senators required to meet the property
qualification. Everybody else would have joined the 21st century but we would be
shackled to the 19th century. I don't think that's fair, I don't think it's
respectful. It's one thing for us to live with an archaic relic; I think it's
another to establish a new division affecting only one province.

If we wait, with any luck, not very long to get the agreement of Quebec to
proceed with this measure, will we be doing any harm with that delay? I don't
think so. The fact is that $4,000, although I said yesterday that it was a very
great deal of money in 1867, is not that much now.

Senator Patterson spoke eloquently about the difficulty for many people in
this country to own a home, but you don't have to own a home in your province or
your division to qualify as a senator; you have to have $4,000 worth of real
property. You can be like me and have about a quarter acre of swamp some place.
For some people — I refer to Quebec — if your division is urban, you may have
difficulty finding property for only $4,000, but it can be done.

Further, I am not making light of people of very limited means, absolutely
not, but the history of this place does show that where there is a will there is
a way, and the classic example of that is our former colleague Sister Peggy
Butts, a sister in the Congregation de Notre Dame who had taken a vow of poverty
and was not allowed to own property, but she was an eminent, illustrious citizen
of this country, and a way was found. Her order made over to her some property,
and she lived there, and the day she left the Senate, she gave the property back
to her order, and she was an ornament to this chamber.

Senator Patterson talked about the difficulty of knowing whether condominiums
qualify. I did some very sketchy work to try and ascertain this, and one
respected lawyer said to me it is absolutely crystal clear that condominiums do
qualify as real property for the purposes of the constitutional qualification.
Another one said, "I'm not that sure about all the provincial legislation, but
I'm pretty sure that at least in Ontario and B.C. they qualify."

(1510)

But again, I repeat, you don't have to own a house or a condominium. You must
live in your province and you must, separate from living in your province, own
$4,000 worth of some form of real property.

Senator Dyck will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think that even in
the case of on-reserve Aboriginals, which Senator Patterson raised, the
difficulty is not insuperable because I think that certificates of possession
would cover that requirement for ownership of property for purposes of
membership in the Senate.

This is a long way of saying that, like everybody in this chamber, I want to
get where Senator Patterson wants us to be. But I think it's terribly important
that we do it properly, and in my view, that means not proceeding with either of
these items, the bill or the motion, until we have verified the position of the
government and the National Assembly of Québec. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Would the honourable senator answer a
question?

Senator Fraser: Yes.

Senator Ringuette: You talked about the relationship, with regard to
Quebec, of the 24 ridings. The fact is that removing the $4,000 — with the
agreement of the Quebec government, of course — might also create an obligation
for senators from Quebec to reside within these ridings. Is that what I
understood? If so, then that is truly creating a whole new set of issues.

Senator Fraser: It's not that it might; it's that it would. If all we
did was remove the $4,000 property qualification, the other element of that
particular section would remain, and that section says:

In the Case of Quebec he —

— we all were "he" then —

— shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division
for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

So in all fairness, in all logic, we need to get rid of both of them, which
is why Senator Patterson has had to address the Quebec question in a separate
motion. Does that answer the question?

Senator Ringuette: Yes, it does. I would like to move the adjournment
of the debate in my name.

The Hon. the Speaker: Before you do, Senator Maltais has a question.

[Translation]

Hon. Ghislain Maltais: Senator Fraser, I listened carefully to your
speech. The bill currently before us would resolve an issue facing one senator
in particular, Senator Patterson, with whom I fully agree. However, we cannot
rewrite history. That is very important.

You know why we had 24 seigneuries in Quebec. You know why we have 24
senatorial districts in Quebec. You know why two amendments were added to the
Constitution, one for Newfoundland and Labrador and the other to secularize
education. Since we are now an independent Senate, free of any attachments,
could this issue not be resolved among Quebecers? Could we not get the Quebec
senators together to come up with a proposal for the National Assembly and come
back here to draft a bill tailored to Quebecers, and then amend the Constitution
accordingly? This would ensure some degree of unanimity.

The way the bill is currently worded, a unanimous vote is required in the
Senate, which may be difficult to achieve. You would never have my vote on that.

I therefore propose that Senator Patterson split his bill so that we can vote
in favour of it right away and resolve that particular situation.

I simply cannot imagine a senator from the Northwest Territories resolving a
Constitutional issue related to Quebec. That would not go over well, senator.
You know Quebec's francophones and anglophones as well as I do.

I therefore suggest this alternative, given that the senators are independent
and extraordinarily open-minded.

Senator Fraser: I think we're more or less of the same view, Senator
Maltais. I think that's why Senator Patterson presented his proposal in two
parts: the bill was for the rest of the country, and the motion was for Quebec.
I fully agree this proposal should be bilateral, not only in form, but also in
substance; and let us consult our National Assembly colleagues in Quebec.
Otherwise, who are we to impose a change regarding something that, at the time,
was critically important to Quebec? We need to act with a minimum of respect for
our colleagues.

Hon. Serge Joyal: Would the honourable senator take another question?

Senator Fraser: With pleasure, yes.

[English]

Senator Joyal: Senator Fraser, I listened carefully to you, and you
tended to suggest that this house of Parliament cannot move unless we have
concurrence of the legislative assembly, which is concerned with bilateral
changes of the Constitution. First, that's not exactly what the Constitution
says.

Second, when I sat in this chamber in 1999, we adopted a bilateral amendment
with the Province of Quebec and another one with the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. When the Province of Quebec wanted concurrence from this house and
the other for amendments to remove the religious administrative structure of the
school system in Quebec, which was in the Constitution in 1993, the first
initiative was from the legislative assembly, which adopted a resolution. Then
they sent the resolution to the federal government. That's how it happens, and
that's what is written in section 46.(1) of the Constitution. I will read it to
you:

The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 —

— which is the one at stake —

— may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the
legislative assembly of a province.

In the case I just outlined to you, the precedent that some of us voted for
in this chamber — I was one of them — was at the request of a resolution adopted
by the legislative assembly in Quebec. So in my humble opinion, there is nothing
that prevents us from adopting the resolution proposed by Senator Patterson and
informing the legislative assembly in Quebec, which is called the National
Assembly, that we seek their concurrence for that amendment that, as you know,
was looked upon by the Supreme Court in 2014 and was ruled and considered with
no more real protection for the purpose for which it was originally put in the
Constitution.

(1520)

If we or you or I reread the ruling of the Supreme Court of April 2014, it's
fairly clear that the court says that the Parliament of Canada has the
constitutional authority to remove that section of the Constitution — in the
case of Quebec, seek, of course, the concurrence of the province. But the court
said clearly that the purpose for which those sections were originally included
in the Constitution does not serve any more protection that is not provided by
the Charter or by other sections of the Constitution.

That is why I would like to ask you if your approach is essentially political
courtesy rather than based on the precedent and the reading of the Constitution.

Senator Fraser: There is a distinction to be drawn here, I believe,
between the law and what is the right thing to do. In law, you are, of course,
as always, Senator Joyal, 100 per cent correct. Absolutely. I don't dispute
that.

And I can conceive of circumstances in which Parliament might choose to
initiate, without prior consultation, a constitutional amendment if there were
matters of some urgency, but in order to get a bilateral amendment — if you want
to call it that — adopted, it also must be adopted by the province in question.
It seems to me appropriate that there be some form of prior consultation. In law
this is not necessary. But I do think it is, where possible, a respectful way to
proceed, and I believe that respect in these matters is something worthy of
attainment. However, in law, you are absolutely right, and I would not now wish
to go down the road of what I would recommend doing if Quebec, for whatever
reason, said, "No, we won't do it." I'd be a bit surprised, but were they to do
that, then I might have to reconsider my position about Senator Patterson's
bill. As you know, I'm proposing that we put a bit of a hold on both elements of
this package until we can be sure that my province supports a constitutional
amendment that is going to affect it.

Senator Joyal: The honourable senator mentioned that you would not
want, of course, to hurt or act discourteously with the Province of Quebec. Of
course, you are a senator from Quebec as much as I am and as much as many other
senators in this chamber are. But when I read the brief that the Quebec
government tabled with the Supreme Court in 2014, and I had the authorization of
the court to intervene, I carefully read that paragraph of the brief of the
Quebec government. The brief stated the objective as originally contemplated by
the framer in 1867. I was there, and, again, I'm not telling the history of
somebody else. I listened carefully to what the Quebec attorney had to say on
that question because the question was before the court, and never did the
Quebec attorney plead that this has to remain in the Constitution, as I said,
for the sake of the objective that was originally contemplated when it was put
in the Constitution.

Moreover, we adopted in this chamber amendments to the law of succession to
the throne, and the constitutionality of that bill that we adopted in this
chamber unanimously is being challenged, as you know, in the court. We had a
decision last February at the Superior Court in Quebec, and it's now before the
Court of Appeal in Quebec. The closing date for tabling briefs was October 7,
and the Quebec government has taken the stand of challenging the capacity of the
Parliament of Canada to adopt those amendments that we adopted unanimously,
Quebec senators, and you remember, of course, when we debated that in this
chamber.

So I can understand that we could send a letter to the Quebec premier
informing him that we are contemplating this issue, but I don't think that it
should prevent us from airing the issues, exposing the arguments and requesting
concurrence from the Quebec government, which I would say in good faith, as much
as they sought our concurrence in 1999 when we voted unanimously in this chamber
for the bilateral amendments sought by the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I have a nuance with your position, that we should continue the debate and
the study of Senator Patterson's motion because I think it is helpful, even for
the Quebec government, to read the arguments that the honourable senators will
have an opportunity to set out in the reasoning so that it will help the Quebec
government to come to a decision in relation to that. That's why I have a nuance
with what you suggest to us, that we suspend everything. My question is that we
should continue the discussion, debate and study of this issue to help the
Quebec government understand the implications of what we are looking for.

Senator Fraser: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify
what I'm actually trying to suggest here, senator. I'm all in favour of debate,
study and airing the issue. I absolutely support that, and I hope that a number
of senators will participate in this debate because we're talking about
constitutional rules that affect this chamber.

What I was hoping to postpone, at least for an interim while we try to reach
out as I have suggested, was actual votes. I don't see any reason why we would
need to rush.

Now Senator Patterson is probably sitting there thinking, "Well, she's kept
me waiting for six months. How much longer does she want me to wait?"

Senator Patterson: How did you know?

Senator Fraser: But one of the lessons I learned when I came to this
place, and I came from daily journalism, so it was a big lesson for me to learn,
was that sometimes time brings wisdom and consensus here, and in this case, I
think it might, but I'm certainly not trying to stifle debate.

On the matter of the royal succession, since you raised it, I observe that I
strongly objected to that bill not at all in substance but because what we were
being asked to do was pass a bill saying, sight unseen, that we adopted a bill
that had yet to be adopted by the Parliament of Westminster. We were being asked
to buy a pig in a poke. We all knew they were trying to update the rules of the
royal succession. We were all in favour of that, but I strongly objected to
being asked to support, sight unseen, the final form of a bill passed by another
Parliament.

Senator Joyal: I just want to invite honourable senators to read the
decision of Justice Bouchard of the Superior Court where he specifically
addressed that question by stating that the preamble of the Statute of
Westminster invites Westminster to seek the concurrence of the Dominion before
they legislate in relation to the amendments to the Succession to the Throne
Act. In other words, your preoccupation has already been dealt with by the
justice at the Superior Court. Of course, it will be reconsidered at the Court
of Appeal, as I mentioned, and I will have the pleasure of expanding on that
issue maybe next year in front of the court. But that issue has been addressed
very well by the court, and I think that should not influence the honourable
senator in her decision in relation to the debate of that bill.

Senator Fraser: I did actually spend some time contemplating the
Statute of Westminster at that time. May I suggest that the policy of seeking
concurrence, whether in law or in some other form, is exactly what I am arguing
for here.

(1530)

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Patterson, if you propose to speak, you
will end debate on second reading. Question Senator Patterson?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I would like to thank the honourable
member for giving me some credit for this bill. I should give credit to Senator
Banks, who inspired me to revive this bill following the Supreme Court ruling.

I would like to suggest to the honourable senator, with all respect to your
concerns about consulting Quebec, that my initiative is in two parts. There is a
bill, which is before us today, and there's a motion. The motion primarily
addresses the question of consent of Quebec. We're not discussing that this
afternoon directly.

Would the honourable senator consider whether the best way to proceed would
be to have this bill thoughtfully considered by a committee of this body and, as
Senator Joyal said, give the Government of Quebec lots of reasons why we're
taking this step and leave the debate about consent of the legislature of Quebec
to when my motion comes up in the chamber?

Senator Fraser: It is going to come up this afternoon because it's on
day 15.

I can make the whole speech all over again if anybody wants.

Senator Plett: No.

Senator Fraser: I thought not.

When I was speaking under the formal heading of the bill, I was trying to
address both parts of the package. I tried to explain that, at least for now, it
would be courteous, respectful and fair not to move on the bill which affects
the rest of the country unless we have some assurance we can also move on the
motion. I have described the assurances that would be appropriate.

If it is the will of the chamber, my preference is to refer the subject
matter to a committee. For now, I would like to avoid an actual vote, even
though second reading is approval in principle and I approve of the principle. I
hope you understand my reticence about actual formal voting at this point.

Senator Patterson: You raise an interesting question about how we
should seek the approval of the legislature of the Quebec. As a courtesy I
provided the bill to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for Quebec some
time ago when it was introduced in the Senate.

Do I as a sponsor of a private member's bill have the authority to represent
the Senate in asking the Government of Quebec for concurrence before taking the
next step? Does it come through the Speaker? That's a good question to ask if we
want to provide the Government of Quebec with the courtesy of consultation.

I suggest respectfully that a good place to discuss that would be in a
committee of this chamber. I don't think the Province of Quebec has the habit of
appearing before a Senate committee, but they could be invited. They may break
precedent and want to appear.

This important question is a good idea. Rather than leaving it in limbo, it
is something that could be usefully discussed with the committee.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Fraser, your time has expired. Are you
asking for an additional five minutes?

Senator Fraser: No, simply to respond to Senator Patterson, if I may.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Fraser.

Senator Fraser: There is provision in the Rules that when a committee
is studying the subject matter of a bill, that committee should get in touch
with and seek the reaction of any province that may be affected.

In fact, I have seen the Government of Quebec appear before the Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee or sometimes a special committee on Senate
reform more than once. It would not be unprecedented for them to do so.

They may equally well send a letter saying, "Do what you what; we don't
care." Then it would be up to us to decide whether or not we wanted to press for
some assurance that they would take parallel action to produce a resolution in
the National Assembly.

That would be one way to do that. The chair of the committee or the clerk of
the committee could write to the Government of Quebec, or, since we're talking
constitutional matters, maybe the Speaker. I'm not fussy about the actual way in
which the consultation should be conducted; I just think it should be conducted.

As for your status as an individual senator, you have every right to be in
touch with anyone you want, including the government of any province you want.
They may or may not be courteous enough to respond to you, but I would defend to
the death your right.

Senator Day: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the matter
in my name.

Senator Ringuette: I already moved the adjournment.

The Hon. the Speaker: Sorry, Senator Ringuette, but before questions
started, Senator Day asked to move the adjournment. I asked him to sit so
questions could be asked. That was before you asked for it. Senator Day is now
moving the adjournment of the debate.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moore, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Dawson, for the second reading of Bill S-203, An
Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of
whales and dolphins).

Hon. David M. Wells: I seek leave of the Senate that after I speak to
this bill today that it remain adjourned in the name of Senator Tannas.

The Hon. the Speaker: Granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak about Bill
S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of
whales and dolphins), introduced by my colleague Senator Moore.

As senators, we have an important job with regard to legislation. Our
collective responsibility is to examine bills and ensure that the end product is
the most effective piece of legislation which best serves Canadians.

This bill gives visibility to an important issue. What is at stake is
deserving of debate, and the proposal within this bill is one that should be of
significant importance to all of us.

I believe that eliminating the captivity of whales and dolphins will be
detrimental to the important research being conducted and will continue to be
conducted on marine mammals in zoos, aquariums, and marine mammal facilities.

I have over 30 years' experience in the fishing industry and am a strong
advocate for sustainable fisheries. I know too well that understanding all the
facts on an issue is of critical importance because there are times where the
viability of a species is at stake.

Through my association and in-depth knowledge of the sealing industry, I also
know that relying on campaigns of misinformation will only serve to harm a
species and that it can lead to an imbalance in our ecosystem. These campaigns
of misinformation only serve those who propagate them.

It is for this reason the issue before us is of great importance. As we
analyze facts, we must take into consideration all the scientific data so that
we as senators can make the right decision regarding the future and welfare of
whales and dolphins, indeed of all marine mammals. We do ourselves a disservice
when we're guided by emotion or the narrow spectrum testimonials of just a few.

As a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, I have a deep appreciation of
how heavily coastal communities rely on oceans. However there are increasing
pressures put on them from pollution, overfishing, habitat damage and other
factors. Therefore, awareness through information and knowledge is key to
understanding the lesser-known aspects of our vast oceans.

I recently visited the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre as part of my
own research. Vancouver Aquarium is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to
the conservation of aquatic life. They have over 1,500 staff and volunteers who
are deeply committed to protecting our oceans. During my visit, I learned
firsthand the beneficial work done at the aquarium, and that helps us understand
our marine ecosystems.

The Coastal Ocean Research Institute is an initiative of the Vancouver
Aquarium. Its mission is to produce and communicate scientific knowledge,
evidence and understanding with the objective of protecting coastal ocean life
and habitat and ensuring they remain healthy into the future. They are a
knowledge leader locally and internationally, and their current focus includes
vulnerable species and habitat, including whales.

(1540)

The research done in facilities like this can help us learn about species in
the wild. An example of the importance of research done at the Vancouver
Aquarium is the work being done by Dr. Valeria Vergara with beluga whales. As
you may know, belugas are known as the "canaries of the sea." Little was known
about their song-like vocalizations. Over the course of several years, Dr.
Vergara was able to classify 28 distinct call types such as the one mothers and
calves develop to establish and maintain contact with each other. Dr. Vergara
also discovered that beluga calves, much like human infants, learn language from
their mothers and eventually learn to mimic their mothers' calls.

Dr. Vergara uses the data she has collected to better understand the calls
she has recorded from belugas in the Arctic. This is crucial, as shipping and
other human activities have increased in the Arctic. Thanks to this research, we
can ensure that scientists, Arctic communities, operators, policy-makers and
regulators are equipped with the most accurate information to allow them to make
informed decisions about the impacts that human pursuits in the North may have
on its wildlife.

In addition, I have received a letter signed by 70 scientists from around the
world, supporting research in marine mammal facilities. In this letter, this
group of scientists reaffirms the importance of research and marine facilities.
They state:

The advances that have come from this research in marine mammal
facilities could not have come from studies of animals in the wild. Field
studies are crucial; however, many research questions are unsuited to
discovery at a distance. Studies of pregnancy, birth, and fine-scale calf
development require the type of close and consistent observation that is
only possible in zoological settings.

The hypothesis testing required for questions about cognition, perception
and physiology requires the ability to present animals with specific
situations and challenges utilizing the necessary controls, consistency and
repetition that are impossible to achieve in the wild.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have excellent guidance on the subject of
animals used in research. The Canadian Council on Animal Care, known as the
CCAC, is the national peer review organization responsible for setting,
maintaining and overseeing the implementation of standards for animal ethics and
care in science throughout Canada.

The CCAC is internationally respected and recognized by organizations
including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development — the OECD
— for its efforts in guideline development and facility accreditation. As well
as having guidelines on the care and use for animals in teaching, the CCAC has
published CCAC guidelines on: the care and use of marine mammals.

The preface of the CCAC guidelines on: the care and use of marine mammals
sums up the primary challenge of maintaining any marine mammals. It states:

Concerns regarding the maintenance of marine mammals relate to the
ability of institutions to ensure an acceptable quality of life for the
animals in their care. The quality of life of an animal has been described
in terms of an interaction of three components: biological functioning,
affective states, and relatively natural life . . . . If marine mammals are
to be maintained in institutions, these three components should be
considered in relation to the facilities and husbandry regimes of the
animals, in order to create environments that positively affect their
quality of life.

In other words, colleagues, quality of life has to be the focus.

Dr. Jennifer Keyte, a university veterinarian and director of animal care
services at Memorial University in St. John's, in my home province, has had more
than 15 years in the field of laboratory animal medicine; that is, programs for
the care and use of animals in research and testing. Dr. Keyte makes four key
points regarding the capture and holding of cetaceans.

First, animals kept in captive environments are often well-kept, well-fed,
well-loved and can live longer, safer lives than those in the wild, but no
matter how you approach it, keeping whales and dolphins for education and
research is an emotional subject.

Second, support for the position needs to place the welfare of the animals as
paramount.

Third, support for natural habitat preservation, conservation efforts and
research into animals in the wild also needs to be in place in order to balance
the costs and benefits that are derived from holding large wild animals in
captivity.

Fourth, education and public engagement need to be highlighted as benefits.

Colleagues, it is critical that we weigh the importance of research,
education and training against the emotionally charged view that putting
cetaceans in captivity should be prohibited.

My professional experience is also first-hand. I held a position as deputy
CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, the
federal regulator for offshore petroleum exploration and production.

The board frequently assessed requests to perform seismic work in the
exploration phase of offshore oil development. Seismic testing involves targeted
subsea explosions and measuring the acoustic feedback. Without the body of
knowledge available to us on marine mammal communication and acoustic
characteristics, we would not have been able to make informed decisions on
location and seasonality regarding seismic testing. Our focus was not on the oil
companies. Our focus was on the production of marine life.

Honourable senators, while the bill seeks to end capture and holding the
cetaceans, I think it would be a wrong move given the important work done in the
educational, research and training fields. Coupled with bodies such as the CCAC,
which developed guidelines on care and use of marine mammals, as well as already
existing legislation, I believe it would be a mistake to allow Bill S-203 to
pass. For these reasons, I will not be supporting Bill S-203, and I urge all
honourable senators to do the same.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Wells: I will.

Senator Moore: I listened with interest to your speech, senator. It
amazes me it has taken 15, 16 months to get this far, but I'm glad you spoke.

I do agree with your comments with regard to campaigns of misinformation such
as Brigitte Bardot and the McCartneys. Nobody supported that.

I can tell you I don't think that anybody in this chamber would think that my
speeches have been charged with emotion. They're a matter of fact. I'm pleased
to hear you say that it all depends on the scientific knowledge. That is the
key.

In my speech, I made no comments about the facility you mentioned not being
able to do scientific research.

I am wondering how you jibe that when you indicate that my bill would deny
supporting research. I don't understand that.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Moore, for your question.

My comment wasn't directed at your bill and wasn't directed at you for
heightening any emotion regarding this. There are many voices out there that do
that very well.

One of the researchers I referenced, I spoke to that researcher in Vancouver.
I also spoke to Dr. Keyte in Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of this research
cannot be done with cetaceans in the wild. There just are not the desktop or
tabletop or lab controls that can be put in place that would be able to do the
testing and to have control of the variables that are required in testing.

The reference was toward that. It only makes sense. That's why you have
facilities such as aquariums with these controls, with PhDs, with scientists
that do this work, because that can't always be done in the wild.

Senator Moore: The matter of doing research, I have advocated that on
the mammals currently in the possession of these facilities and also on rescue
animals that they may bring in that they can work on, that they cannot return to
the wild, that they may keep them. Are we in disagreement on that point?

Senator Wells: We are, Senator Moore. Your statement presupposes, or
supposes, that all the research done to date is all the research that will be
beneficial into the future, so future work would be eliminated by this bill.

(1550)

Further, any whales or dolphins that are brought into a facility because
they're injured wouldn't necessarily — in fact, they very specifically may not
be suitable for the types of testing that would happen if they come in injured.
I don't know how good a specimen they would be for this type of research.

Senator Moore: I was heartened to hear you say that quality of life
has to be the focus. I would suggest to you that the quality of life of a
cetacean is in the wild, in the ocean where they belong, not in a swimming pool.
Would you not agree with that?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Moore. In general, I would agree
with that. However, many of us have pets. Does that mean that the pets don't
live a good life in our homes or in our gardens, that they should be left in the
wild? Further, many of the cetaceans that are held in captivity were in fact
born in captivity, so they don't know the wildlife that you suggest.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Would you take another question?

Senator Wells: Yes, I will take a question.

Senator Plett: Without speaking for or against the bill, I do have a
question.

I have done that, Senator Moore, and I will do it again at third reading, but
I won't do it here today.

As you said at the start, you were speaking to Bill S-203, An Act to amend
the Criminal Code and other Acts. I want to read the "punishment" clause of this
bill:

Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) or (4) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to
a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more
than eighteen months or to both.

"An indictable offence."

As you know, and as we have said, this creates a new offence under the
Criminal Code. Constitutional issues have been raised on this particular issue.
Given that constitutional challenges may be raised, it clearly changes the
Criminal Code. The sponsor of this bill has suggested that the bill go to either
the Fisheries Committee or the Social Affairs Committee.

Given this, would you not agree that the only committee that should study
something that is in the Criminal Code and constitutionally questionable should
go to Legal and Constitutional Affairs?

Senator Moore: Point of order, Your Honour.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you want to respond to the question?

Senator Wells: Yes, if I could have time to respond, and I'm happy to
respond to any other questions within the five minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Point of order, Senator Moore.

Senator Moore: Your Honour, the honourable senator knows that I am
withdrawing the clause with regard to the Criminal Code penalty. He knows that
and his leader knows that, so the question is absolutely moot.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, do you wish to reply?

Senator Plett: Absolutely. Senator Moore has told me that on Monday he
would show me the text of what he's doing. Today is Thursday; I don't have the
text.

As far as I'm concerned, we are debating a bill before us right now, an act
to amend the Criminal Code. Once we have a bill before us that doesn't amend the
Criminal Code, all of our arguments, including Senator Wells' argument that he
just made, are irrelevant.

Right now we have before us Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

Senator Tkachuk: We need a new bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: This is a matter for debate, Senator Moore,
rather than a point of order.

Senator Wells, are you asking for time to respond to Senator Plett's
question?

Senator Wells: I am, yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is not granted. The matter remains
adjourned in the name of Senator Tannas.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, for the second reading of Bill
C-210, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender).

Hon. Claudette Tardif: Honourable senators, I seek leave that after I
speak, the adjournment remain in the name of Senator McCoy.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, I am very pleased to talk about
Bill C-210, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act.

I would like to begin by expressing my great admiration for the person who
sponsored this bill in the other place, the late Honourable Mauril Bélanger, a
courageous man who inspired us all this past year.

Mauril strongly believed that the English version of our national anthem
should be gender-neutral. I admire his passion and his commitment to this cause
and to the many others to which he contributed during his productive but all too
short career.

[English]

I would also like to recognize the work of our colleague Senator Nancy Ruth,
who has worked tirelessly over a number of years to change the English version
of our national anthem to make it more inclusive.

Bill C-210 proponents have argued that two words in our national anthem —
"thy sons" — ought to change as they are not inclusive. Indeed, there is an
obvious omission: women, who represent a little more than 50 per cent — in fact,
52 per cent — of the Canadian population.

Honourable senators, our current national anthem — the English version, that
is — was actually modified at least once before. The original iteration was, in
fact, gender neutral, as was — and still is — the French version.

Indeed, O Canada was originally a French song based on a French poem,
and first performed on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Quebec City in 1880. Its
lyrics included women from the outset, as demonstrated in the use of
gender-neutral language.

The original English version of 1908 read "true patriot love, thou dost in us
command." It was in 1913 that a change in the English version was made from
"thou dost in us command" to "in all thy sons command."

The change proposed in Bill C-210 is not really a change but more of a
rectification, or a return to the original meaning of this particular line in
the anthem. It also happens to be more gender inclusive and representative of
21st-century Canada, recognizing that Canadians come from all around the world.
It also puts the English version on par with its French counterpart.

[Translation]

If we were to compose a national anthem now, in 2016, it would most certainly
be gender-neutral. I doubt it would even occur to anyone to ask whether "all of
us command" would be a better choice than "all thy sons command".

Our English national anthem was written over a hundred years ago and changed
shortly thereafter, perhaps in reference to the young men sent to the front
during the First World War. The way I see it, our national anthem speaks not
only of our history as a nation, but also of its own history. For veterans and
their families, this is a poem freighted with personal meaning.

That being said, I do believe words carry meaning, and the expression "thy
sons" clearly makes a gender distinction. Those two words no longer work in
2016.

(1600)

We have since modernized our way of thinking and writing in order to make our
language more inclusive. Times change. Here in Parliament, our way of seeing
things also changes with time. We are making legislative amendments today that
we would have defeated or refused to consider outright 50, 30, even 10 years
ago.

Just look at the recent bill on medical assistance in dying. With that in
mind, I believe the change proposed in Bill C-210 is rather appropriate.

[English]

I believe that a majority of parliamentarians and Canadians would agree that
as a society we should be as inclusive as possible. I hear this not just in
Ottawa but also in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada, and most people, I believe,
would agree that this should be reflected in our national anthem. Singing our
national anthem is more than a patriotic endeavour. It is a way to reflect on
our past, present and future. It is a reflection of our identity as Canadians.

The fact is that we as Canadians have not done enough to celebrate women's
contributions to our society until our recent past. This includes women of great
talent and leadership whose contributions to Canada have been immeasurable. In
the words of the late Mauril Bélanger:

On the eve of the 150th anniversary of our federation, it is important
that one of our most recognized and appreciated national symbols reflect the
progress made by our country in terms of gender equality.

Our national anthem, written a century ago, is a case in point. Celebrating
the contributions of only half of Canadians to our well-being may have been an
accepted practice 100 years ago, but this is now the 21st century, and our
national anthem should better reflect who we are today and who we aspire to be
as Canadians in the future.

Honourable senators, I truly do not believe that this small change alters our
national anthem in a way that diminishes our shared history and sense of
identity. Indeed, I'm inclined to believe that it will actually strengthen it.

Honourable senators, I therefore am fully in favour of amending our national
anthem as proposed in Bill C-210.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Will the honourable senator take a
question?

Senator Tardif: Of course.

Senator MacDonald: The senator mentioned that the change in the
national anthem will not change the meaning of the anthem, but of course "all
thy sons command" is a possessive in English. If it was to change in a
gender-neutral way, it should still be a possessive. Should it say "in all of
our command" and not the proposed change?

Senator Tardif: I'm sorry, senator, could you explain the change?

Senator MacDonald: "In all thy sons command" is a possessive in the
English language. If you change it to make it gender-neutral, should the words
be "in all of our command" as opposed to the proposed change?

Senator Tardif: Thank you for the question, senator. I think the
essence of the matter is that it remains neutral.

Senator MacDonald: Yes, but it's grammatically incorrect.
That's the point I'm making. It requires a possessive pronoun or else you are changing the
possessiveness of the language. It is improper English. "In all of us command"
is not proper English.

Senator Tardif: I think that if you agree with the intent of the
change, senator, I'm sure that the grammatical nature of it could be considered
in committee.

Senator MacDonald: Another question: The original version of the
anthem — and it's actually a version I love —is full of 19th century muscular
Christianity. No question, Catholicism. I am Catholic. I can see it in the
words. But how are the cross and the obvious Christianity in the French version
inclusive?

Senator Tardif: Thank you. I'm not sure I understand the nuance that
you refer to. I do not see, either in the French version or in the change, that
changing it from "all thy sons command" to "in all of us command" negates any
adherence to our patriotic sentiments or to our fundamental values, whether
Christian or otherwise.

Senator MacDonald: Again, senator, I'm not talking about values. I'm
talking about the proper application of the English language. It is improper
English to say "in all of us command." It has to be in "all of our command." Do
you not agree?

Senator Tardif: I believe that will be for the committee to look into,
senator.

Hon. David M. Wells: Would the senator take another question?

Senator Tardif: Of course.

Senator Wells: Obviously, I see the intent here. I don't know why it
is stopping at the first stanza. Later on in the anthem there is reference to
"sons" and "gentle maidens rising." Why do you suppose no consideration was made
to making changes to the rest of the anthem?

Senator Tardif: I do not see "gentle maidens" in the script that I
have.

Senator Tardif: Once again, senator, if you agreed that we should be
rendering our national anthem more inclusive, I believe that matter should be
considered by the committee.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Following up on a point raised by Senator MacDonald,
Senator Tardif. Some colleagues with long memories may recall that I have
reservations about the proposed change here, but if the object is to modernize
the national anthem so that it is a good reflection of Canadian society, how can
we justify a national anthem that goes on at some length about —

[Translation]

Bearing the sword and the cross.
And your valour steeped in faith.

[English]

There are many, many Canadians who are not Christian let alone Catholic. For
them, surely that is at least as offensive as the innocent phrase "thy sons."
Why are we hammering away on the English version? If we are going to change the
national anthem every time we have a new version of what society looks like, why
not do the whole thing?

Senator Tardif: Thank you, senator, for your comments and for your
question. I certainly respect the opinion that you are presenting. I would say
that Canadians continue to question their assumptions and their symbols. I can
recall when we were talking about the changes to the Canadian flag and how
opposed we were to the adoption of the flag with the maple leaf. Now we love our
flag.

I'm saying that it's natural to question our assumptions and our symbols, but
I think that at this point it's important to make this small change. If we want
to add further changes, certainly that can be looked at, but at this point in
time we're speaking about this one particular change which makes the anthem more
inclusive to include not just some of us but all of us.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Senator Tardif, would you take another
question?

Senator Tardif: Yes.

Senator Dyck: It's a follow-up to Senator MacDonald's point. He was
essentially saying the English version says "true patriot love in all thy sons
command." Then he was saying that "sons" essentially is a possessive pronoun.

(1610)

Would you not agree that what the anthem actually is saying, if we rearrange
the words, is "true patriot love command in all thy sons," so "sons" is actually
a noun, not a possessive pronoun? Would you agree with that?

Senator Tardif: I think you raise a very interesting point, senator.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Senator Tardif, would you take another
question?

Senator Tardif: Of course.

Senator Ringuette: I really appreciated your comments, Senator Tardif.
However, as a chamber of sober second thought, is it not appropriate, when
studying a bill, to ensure that what is written in French is reflected in
English, and what is written in English is reflected in French? In the French
version of the national anthem, there is no mention of sons or daughters. Is one
of our primary roles not to ensure that our national anthem also reflects
consistency in the language?

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: I regret to inform the honourable senator that
her time has expired. Is she asking for more time to respond to that question?

Senator Tardif: In answer to that question, yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

Senator Tardif: Thank you, Senator Ringuette. As you know, when it
comes to translation, it is not a question of translating word for word, but
rather about finding corresponding meaning. The French version is gender
neutral, but that is not the case in the English version.

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report (interim) of the
Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, entitled: Senate
Modernization: Moving Forward (Caucus), presented in the Senate on October
4, 2016.

Hon. Elaine McCoy moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I am speaking to Recommendations 7 and 8 of
the Modernization Committee's recommendations to move our Senate into the 21st
century, and I will start at page 21 of our report, which begins with a
reference to a poll that Nik Nanos conducted across Canada in April of this year
at my request in which we asked Canadians whether or not they would like us as
their senators to participate in political caucuses.

A strong majority, in fact three out of four, believe senators should be less
partisan, and they say also that we should be independent and vote independently
of any party caucus.

That is an enormous majority, and it is the people speaking. We have included
a summary of that poll as an appendix to this report. We think it is significant
position taken by the public of Canada.

Now, as you know, currently our Rules, both the rules of procedure, called
the Rules of the Senate, and our administrative rules, the Senate
Administrative Rules, often referred to as SARs, focus primarily at the
moment on two political parties. It's primarily set up so that everything
happens according to what I would call an oligarchy, two political parties,
because that is who we had represented in the Senate.

In many ways it worked very well. For many years it worked very well, but as
I said in a previous speech a month or two ago, it did in fact create a
structure that is more susceptible to an abuse of power than not because you
only have one who is in a majority and one who is in a minority, and the
minority expects to be in the majority in due course, in short order they hope,
and so you set up a dynamic where there is agreement: If you do this now, then
it will benefit me next.

Many of us in this chamber have argued, and some in speeches in this chamber
— Senator Bellemare, you were one — have spoken in favour of a third group
because we felt the third group would broaden the discussion and lead to more
debates and discussion amongst us, and this would be a good and adequate
deterrent against the tyranny of the majority.

I must say — and I have said it before and I will say it again — I personally
have nothing against political caucuses, but I do think that having only two in
a chamber of this size is not as conducive to full scrutiny of legislation and
debate as it might be, and I must say that if we follow this path where we have
at least three groups, maybe four — at the moment we have four — it does broaden
and follow the history that George Étienne Cartier led us to. We would not have
a Senate if, when Ontario, the anglophones, wanted to annihilate the
francophones in Quebec, he had not said, "Wait a minute. We'll go along with
creating Canada, but we need to have three groups, and those three groups must
be equal and they must be represented in the Senate." And the Senate became the
deal maker for Confederation.

In many ways we are going back to our roots. We are following that very wise
reality of having at least three groups so you do have some means of offsetting
the tyranny of the majority.

Now what do Recommendations 7 and 8 do? Basically this is the nuts and bolts.
These are the tools that all senators need in order to perform their
constitutional duties and functions in an effective way, and it's because so
many of our Rules have reference to either "caucus" or "recognized party" or
"leader of a recognized party" or "leader of another recognized party." It goes
on and on and on.

We thought a first, direct and simple move would be to give all senators,
whether or not they belong to a political caucus, ample room to maximize our
participation in the work of the Senate and fully discharge our constitutional
functions. We could do that by a simple change in definition of "caucus" so it
would include either a political party or a group that is organized for
parliamentary purposes. We've defined that here, as you've seen.

(1620)

We thought also if we replace the term "leader of a recognized party" with
the term "leader or facilitator of a caucus," which would include a
parliamentary group that is not a political party, caucus or a recognized party,
that that would also open other rules up. Then we thought that every such group
should have a spokesperson, and that facilitates what we call the usual channels
so that we are able to organize and structure debates and make sure that chamber
business and committee business is working well.

Now, I must say that until we have that done, what we have is a group — and
we are organized. We do have the independent senators' group and we are
organized. Many of you would recognize our meetings, from being in a caucus
already, for the very reason of structuring debates and our participation here.

But for the moment we feel that although there has been movement and we are
very pleased to be on some committees and to be included in the scrolls — thank
you very much for that invitation — and we are being included more and more in
discussions, still we feel as if we have qualified for the Tour de France. We
are here, we are members of the Senate, you are gradually and very gracefully
including us more and more, but we feel that our bicycles are still locked in
Customs. While you are all on your bicycles, our bicycles are still locked away.
So what these recommendations would do is unlock our bicycles so we could at
least begin to pedal down the roadway.

I will say it doesn't fully answer every question. It doesn't give us all
equality on every level and on every small detail, but we also don't think you
can do everything at once. So when we looked at the vast array of things that
need to be done, we thought, let's start with the most important. Let me point
out some of them.

For example, there is the very thought of selecting critics and sponsors. I
can say there are 27 places in the Rules of the Senate and the Senate
Administrative Rules that these simple amendments in definition will fix.
One of them is agreeing on a motion to allocate time on government bills. These
are the sort of nuts and bolts I'm talking about. Another of them is to sit ex
officio on committees like other groups do to ensure there is representation
from all parts of the chamber.

But I will say that the most active place where we are restricted from really
being responsible is in terms of our committee memberships. Even with the two
committee members we have now on all the standing and special committees, the
Rules explicitly prevent us from substituting another independent senator. The
Rules allow the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and the
leader of any other recognized party to substitute members from their caucuses.
But for everybody else, there is no mechanism other than the Selection Committee
or another motion on the floor of the Senate, which is altogether too
cumbersome.

Since we've started sitting again since the election, which is roughly six or
seven months now — we are at the end of October — 500 substitutions on
committees have already taken place. Now, what we've been doing is walking the
talk. We do, to the best of our ability, send somebody in our place, but they
are not officially substituted so they can't vote and they can't put motions
forward.

That's a severe limitation on us taking our full participation. Forget
proportionality. With the limited number of places we have on committees, we
can't take up the full burden of our responsibility, our duty to Canadians and
our constitutional functions. It's those kinds of nuts and bolts that
Recommendations 7 and 8 would cure and would get us further along the road to
integrating all of the new appointees.

Now, I must acknowledge what we heard today, that another nine senators have
been appointed. Of course we welcome them and congratulate them. Their
biographies appear to be outstanding. So we will all benefit from their
presence, whether they join a political caucus or the independent senators'
group or wish to sit strictly as independents themselves. I don't know. Whatever
it is, if they are appointed to a committee, they will not have anyone who will
be able to substitute for them when they are sick or off on business in their
constituencies. It is really that kind of limitation for which we are putting
forward a very practical suggestion that would allow other things to be
discussed more fully.

It's because it's such a nuts and bolts issue and goes to the very ability
for us to fulfill our functions that we asked that this measure be brought back
by November 30.

One thing we did recognize, although there were 15 of us and several others
who participated and who regularly attended, 15 of us on this committee came
back with a consensus on these recommendations and recognized that somebody else
should do the due diligence on what we are recommending. Of course, due
diligence on the Rules of the Senate is at the Rules Committee and due
diligence on the Senate Administrative Rules is at Internal. So our
recommendation is framed in that we send it to those two committees and ask them
to appoint the refined amendments no later than November 30.

Today is October 27. I'm looking at Senator Fraser, who chairs the Rules
Committee, and at Senator Housakos, who was here a minute ago, and Senator
Wells, who is on the steering committee of Internal, and I am saying to you we
think we've done our homework well enough that if you turn this matter over to
your staff and the staff of committees and then hold a meeting on it, we could
bring this back and settle this nuts and bolts piece quickly before we continue
to debate all the other questions we have that we have not resolved as to the
long-term future of this Senate. This is the practical piece that gets us going
forward.

I do say that I don't think we're letter-perfect on what we suggested in the
report on the amendments, and I didn't think you would think so. I see you
shaking your head, Senator Fraser. I knew you would find at least one point that
needs refining because you are that good at it, but I do think that if we get
the analytical staff with your committee, you and Senator White to look at this,
we could come to a quick resolution.

May I have some more time?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator McCoy: So what we are asking, then, is for a pragmatic move
forward, which we think will take us one step further but also give us the
space. There are other bigger questions, Senator Frum. I know we've had these
discussions at the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization. There are
some bigger questions that are long term, and I think we need to take the time
to build a consensus on that. I think we also deserve to give ourselves the time
to do that, and I think we also need to give the new senators who are coming in
time to participate in those discussions, all of which I'm in favour of. But we
can't lock our bicycles up at customs while we wait to decide whether the race
is even going to start without us.

(1630)

What we're asking is for this practical resolution of this matter now. Thank
you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you have a question, Senator Joyal?

Hon. Serge Joyal: Would the honourable senator entertain a question?

Senator McCoy: Yes.

Senator Joyal: Thank you, Senator McCoy, for your presentation. I
listened to you very carefully, and I think the principle that you would want to
achieve, which is to make sure that the senators who are non-affiliated or
independent would want not only to participate but also have the opportunity to
be replaced a member of their group, seems rational and reasonable.

You called upon pragmatism in order to make the adjustments that are needed
in our institution to better reflect its composition.

I subscribe to the pragmatism approach. I refer you to Motion 43 on the Order
Paper. It calls for pragmatism to solve a problem, which is the membership on
the Conflict of Interest Committee, which we haven't had since the opening of
the new Parliament, which I think is very serious in our way of maintaining
ethics. In that same context of pragmatism, what has been offered as a
compromise is a fifth seat on the committee to a member of the independent group
as a way to solve that conundrum and show that there is movement on all sides in
relation to achieving the progress we want in our chamber.

Senator McCoy: Thank you for the question. As the Deputy Chair of the
Modernization Committee knows so well, we did not address the situation of that
third pillar. We have three rule books, if you like, that we all have to follow.
One is the Senate procedural rules that govern what we say and do in committees;
one is the administrative rules, which govern how we conduct our business; and
one is the code of ethics and conflict of interest, which is another way of
controlling and maintaining high behavioural standards for senators.

It is good when all three are actually matching. There is quite a lot of
mismatch, but there are also intense reviews under way at the moment, especially
on the administrative rules, to try to knit all three together.

In terms of what you were raising, you are speaking more within the ambit of
recommendation 21, which is proportionality, which Senator Eggleton and others
have spoken to so eloquently. When I made the amendment — was that March or
February?

May I have time to finish the answer?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator McCoy: The motion that you brought forward, Senator Fraser,
seconded by Senator Joyal, in February or March was to put five people on that
committee, three Conservatives and two Liberals. I spoke up at the time and I
said even today that's not proportional, and on that very important committee,
which we should have right away, we should have a representative of the
independents.

I put forward the amendment that said we will have two Conservatives, two
Liberals and one independent, and that was roughly proportional at that date.

Subsequently, we had seven new senators, and others have left the political
caucuses. In today's world, proportionality on this five-member committee,
ethics and conflict of interest, would not be two Conservatives, two Liberals
and one independent, as far as I know.

There have been discussions, and we have been waiting for some kind of
compromise to come forward, particularly from our friends in the Conservative
caucus. This hasn't been resolved yet.

We have other suggestions that are being spoken to, Motion 60, for example,
which actually is a longer term proposal because Motion 43 is essentially a
sessional order.

Those discussions have been going on. They're amiable, but they're taking too
long. I certainly will endorse what I think you implied, that we should get to
some agreement very soon.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded
by the Honourable Senator McCoy:

That the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of
Parliament, when and if it is formed, be authorized to examine and report on
Senate practices, and provisions in the Rules of the Senate, relating
to committees, including senators' memberships on committees, in order to
evaluate whether all senators:

(a) are, in practice, treated equally, and with fairness and
equity, irrespective of whether they sit as government members, as
opposition members, as members of recognized parties or as independent
senators; and

(b) have reasonable and equal opportunities to fully
participate in and contribute, through committee work and membership, to
this chamber's role as a complementary legislative body of sober second
thought, thereby enabling all senators to adequately fulfill their
constitutional roles and responsibilities;

That in conducting this evaluation the Rules Committee pay particular
attention to:

(a) the process for selecting members of the Committee of
Selection, so that all senators can be considered for membership on that
committee, and so that the interests of all senators, whether they sit
as government members, as opposition members, as members of recognized
parties or as independent senators, are represented in the membership of
that committee; and

(b) the process whereby the Committee of Selection develops
its recommendations for membership of the other committees;

That the Rules Committee also take into account the anticipated increase
in the number of senators who are not members of a recognized party and how
this emerging reality should be taken into account, including during the
current session;

That the Rules Committee recommend necessary amendments to the Rules and
adjustments in Senate practice based upon the results of its examination;
and

That the Rules Committee present its final report on this study to the
Senate no later than March 31, 2016.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Bellemare,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Enverga:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by replacing
the paragraph reading:

"That the Rules Committee also take into account the anticipated
increase in the number of senators who are not members of a recognized
party and how this emerging reality should be taken into account,
including during the current session;"

by the following:

"That the Rules Committee also take into account the anticipated
increase in the number of senators who are not members of a recognized
party so that they are able to form a group of independent senators with
the resources and rights available to a party recognized under the
Rules of the Senate;".

Hon. Yonah Martin (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I see that this is at day 14. I am not yet ready to speak on this, so
I move the adjournment of the debate for the remainder of my time.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson,
seconded by the honourable Senator Runciman:

Whereas the Senate provides representation for groups that are often
underrepresented in Parliament, such as Aboriginal peoples, visible
minorities and women;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1867,
requires that, in order to be qualified for appointment to and to maintain a
place in the Senate, a person must own land with a net worth of at least
four thousand dollars in the province for which he or she is appointed;

Whereas a person's personal circumstances or the availability of real
property in a particular location may prevent him or her from owning the
required property;

Whereas appointment to the Senate should not be restricted to those who
own real property of a minimum net worth;

Whereas the existing real property qualification is inconsistent with the
democratic values of modern Canadian society and is no longer an appropriate
or relevant measure of the fitness of a person to serve in the Senate;

Whereas in the case of Quebec, each of the twenty-four Senators
representing the province must be appointed for and must have either their
real property qualification in or be resident of a specified Electoral
Division;

Whereas an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any
provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by
proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada
only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons
and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment
applies;

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that a full repeal of
paragraph (3) of section 23 of the Constitution Act,1867, respecting
the real property qualification of Senators, would require a resolution of
the Quebec National Assembly pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution
Act, 1982;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution
of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency
the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the
Schedule hereto.

(2) Section 23 of the Act is amended by replacing the semi-colon
at the end of paragraph (5) with a period and by repealing paragraph
(6).

2. The Declaration of Qualification set out in The Fifth Schedule
to the Act is replaced by the following:

I, A.B., do declare and testify that I am by law duly
qualified to be appointed a member of the Senate of Canada.

3. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment,
[year of proclamation] (Real property qualification of Senators).

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, this motion is the second half
of the proposals that I spoke about at length earlier today. I could repeat
everything I said, but it is already getting late and those who want to know
more about this motion can read the record of proceedings.

Hon. Ghislain Maltais: I wanted to adjourn the debate in my name
because this motion pertains to Quebec. Unfortunately, I think it is already too
late. Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to speak to you sooner, but I was
prevented from doing so because there were a number of people wanting to speak.

I would have appreciated some instruction from you. We are dealing with a
serious constitutional amendment. The question I asked Senator Fraser is very
important for Quebec. In future, when an issue relates so specifically to one
province, would it not be possible to keep senators from said province abreast
of what has been done?

We found out unexpectedly that a Senate bill ended up at the National
Assembly of Quebec without the knowledge of the senators from Quebec. That is
unacceptable.

I would appreciate some instruction from you on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette,
P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Day:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, when
and if it is formed, be authorized to examine and report on Canada's export
performance as compared to international best practices in order to provide
recommendations to improve Canada's current export performance, the worst in
30 years according to the OECD;

That the committee make a preliminary report on the current export
performance to the Senate no later than April 14, 2016; and

That the committee make to the Senate a final report on the
implementation of an integrated policy for all partners to improve Canadian
exports to all countries, especially those with which Canada has a free
trade agreement, no later than December 16, 2016.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, today I will speak on
the motion put forward by the recently retired Senator Hervieux-Payette.

This motion was a request for the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee to
study Canada's exports. I should point out that Canada is undergoing the worst
export recovery since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Some senators have stated that the committee's mandate does not provide for
such a study. They can hide behind a mandate, but mandates are meant to be
followed when they are relevant.

When called upon to do so, the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee
conducted all sorts of studies that were outside its mandate. Some of these
studies were on productivity and retirement, but also on trade. You can consult
the committee's website for more information, but the point is that these
studies were done when they were deemed relevant.

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has just
released the results of a study on internal trade, and it is completely
legitimate for the committee to conduct a study on external trade or the state
of our exports.

Today, the barrier between our domestic economy and global markets has
evaporated, and yet it remains in the Senate. Last year, there were two studies
on trade in the Senate, one by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade and the other by an economist from the World Trade
Organization on behalf of the office of Senator Hervieux-Payette.

I encourage you to read both and ask yourselves which of those studies better
addresses the issue of Canada's ability to globally compete.

The study done by the economist outperforms the one done by the Standing
Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade because it
emphasized how Canada's internal economy was failing to achieve success on
global markets. This study revealed that many of the countries that outperform
Canada no longer distinguish between domestic and international trade.

Did the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
address the relevant issue of slow export growth by travelling to Argentina? For
15 years, Argentina had defaulted on billions of dollars in foreign capital on
global markets. According to The Economist, the country lied to the
international community about its inflation figures. Exports to Argentina
account for 0.05% of Canada's exports.

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is
not the only committee to focus on trade, nor should it be. Canadians now need a
study on export opportunities. By virtue of its title, the Standing Senate
Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is responsible for assessing Canada's
commercial activity, so why should it be limited to domestic activity?

If you support this study, you vote for a relevant Senate capable of
addressing today's challenges to the best of its abilities. So let us talk not
about mandates, but instead about the reality facing Canadians on global
markets.

Members of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee had the opportunity to
hear Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen Poloz talk about what he called an
"export slump". Now there are two reasons for the current state of affairs. The
first is that we have just gone through a commodity boom and the boom has ended.
The West Texas Index for the price of oil still remains below 50 dollars a
barrel, and other commodities such as iron and copper have also fallen. This
cycle is over and will not likely come back for some time.

[English]

However, many economist bankers believe the end of the commodity boom would
create a manufacturing revival. Yet for more than two years now, Canadian
manufactured goods have been disappointing.

Why? Well, our current trade surplus with the United States is decreasing. In
fact, it is at the same level as it was in 1993. That is 23 years ago. Our
overall trade balance is experiencing a near record low deficit of $3 billion.
All of this is happening at the same time when many experts said we wouldn't
have a problem. The reason why is because when the American dollar appreciates,
it helps all of the countries that have signed free trade agreements with the
United States. In the early 1990s, there were two such countries, Canada and
Mexico. Today, that list has exceeded 20 countries. As such, our semi-exclusive
access to the United States has ended.

Honourable senators, 95 per cent of exports from Atlantic Canada go to the
U.S. If Atlantic Canada does not reach other markets, the situation will go from
bad to worse.

Mr. Poloz informed the Banking Committee this week that exports had slightly
decreased in the last six months, and Mexicans have increased their exports to
the U.S. Our share of the American market has shrunk, meaning the size of the
pie has grown but our slice is smaller.

My fellow colleagues, the problem is far deeper than many would suggest. The
number of exporting, small and medium-sized enterprises has decreased by 15 per
cent over the last decade in Canada. Most of this occurred in the manufacturing
sector whose share of the economy has also diminished. Despite the popular
rhetoric, Canada is now a service economy, meaning services account for more
than 70 per cent of our total output and employment.

Has there been a study by the Foreign Affairs Committee on how to harness a
service economy to compete in today's global market? No, yet these opportunities
must be investigated. Other countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany
have spent considerable funds, time and effort to ensure that their economies
and citizens are capable of using the same type of economy to compete in today's
global economy.

I, for one, believe it is time to take a serious look at the successes of
other economies and copy their strategy when and where it is appropriate to do
so. Trade is an international gain. As such, we should not be limited to a
solely made-in-Canada solution.

Overall, the current Canadian strategy has been unable to provide a cohesive
and functional recipe for success, particularly in my region of Atlantic Canada.

(1650)

Are there better ways to help SMEs export? This is an area with which both
the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada
continuously struggle.

Compare their result, as posted in their annual reports, to eBay. In 2013,
eBay did a study on SMEs using its website and software, and it discovered that
95 per cent of eBay members were exporting their products and services around
the world.

This study has provoked investigations, research and discussion by the United
Nations and the World Trade Organization, calling for a global empowerment
network, and yet we, as a country, have done nothing on this issue.

My dear colleagues, Canada is not alone in its struggles with regard to
global commerce. More importantly, we need to have a study to assess whether the
structures and strategy that we have relied on in the past are up to the current
task. If they are not, we must be prepared to advocate course corrections
wherever possible without fear of vested interests, whether those interests are
in the private sector or within our own civil service.

This study is not about simply sitting down with economists from the private
sector, civil service and policy think tanks and then distilling synthesis. No,
we will be confronting a major issue head on, actively participating and
engaging today's problems and, most important of all, new ideas.

I'm going to focus on the issue of new ideas because it seems to me that, as
a country, we have elected to confront the 21st century problem with
20th century solutions.

We need to challenge the policy status quo and seek a new generation of
experts. We need to get out of the current rut. We need to introduce new
scenarios, new frameworks and networks to truly move forward.

I am increasingly of the belief that if our economy is going to start
creating jobs to employ young Canadians, then it is likely going to be an
economy enabled by the policies articulated by those same young Canadians.

I don't want a Foreign Affairs study limited solely to hearing from senior
civil servants proposing old and currently ineffective solutions. I am convinced
that, to some extent, their unchallenged ideas are responsible for the failure
by us of Canada's trade policy for the past decade.

I want to hear from young Canadian men and women who have managed to succeed
in difficult circumstances, because I believe that we will be surprised by what
they have to tell us. I want the Senate of Canada to engage Canadians of all
ages on an issue that will define our economy for decades to come, that issue
being our participation in the global economy.

My fellow colleagues, I will sum up why the Banking, Trade and Commerce
Committee needs to do this study.

The first and most simple reason is that it is a relevant issue to today's
commercial situation, and the Senate of Canada needs to be a relevant
institution, capable of confronting tough issues to the best of its ability. We
are not going to be relevant if we maintain an irrelevant separation between the
committee's responsibility for commerce and the issue of international trade.
Maybe it is also time that we review the name and the mandates of our committee.

The second objective is a thorough review of the reason for the situation,
that being our poor export performance as a result of international competition
and an emerging service economy. We must provide an understanding of how our
country should move forward during this difficult process which has been faced
by other countries.

May I have five minutes? I won't need five minutes.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

[English]

Senator Ringuette: This process must include a comparison with
international best practice as was done by the office of Senator
Hervieux-Payette.

Finally, I would like to hear from individuals who have been succeeding since
the 2009 recession. Tomorrow's success will not be a repeat performance of the
past. As such, we should not be limited to the testimony of yesterday's heroes.
If we are going to succeed, it will be from listening to today's success
stories.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, do not look on this as another study, look at it as a
call to action, a challenge put forward by a senator who knew when and where to
act and was never afraid of taking on a challenge. If we vote this down, we will
be digging in our heels, standing up for bureaucracy, useless divisions and
ineffective solutions. Voting for this study will demonstrate that this chamber
is an institution capable of undertaking serious and important work when
required to do so by whatever situation Canadians are faced with.

In closing, I ask that the question be put to senators immediately so that
they may express their support for this study.

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative
in the Senate): Would the senator take a question?

[English]

Senator Ringuette: Yes, I would.

Hon. Elaine McCoy: I would like to take the adjournment in Senator
Wallin's name, but I also have a question.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Could Senator Ringuette explain why she did not
propose an amendment to this motion? The date on the motion is April 14, 2016.
Shouldn't there be an amendment to this motion to extend the deadline? For now,
it has lapsed.

Senator Ringuette: I thank Senator Bellemare for the suggestion. This
only highlights how slow this chamber is at responding to matters of national
importance.

For nearly a month now, we keep hearing that if the Senate decides to proceed
with regional representation, we will hear nothing but regional concerns. We are
proposing to conduct a Canada-wide study to bring hope to our businesses, our
economy, our people, and our young people, as well as new strategies for their
future. This chamber does not even dare move forward in favour of such a study,
which is truly vital.

Yes, the date should be changed. In this case I would like the date to be
November 1, 2016, so we can stop going in circles. We must become an effective
chamber and move forward.

Thank you for the question, Senator Bellemare; you have me even more
convinced.

[English]

Senator McCoy: I, too, had noticed that, but I had another question as
well.

(1700)

First let me say that I think this is an extremely important issue,
particularly with the changing world markets. The Banking Committee just issued
an important study on bitcoins and other new forms of commerce. I know the
former Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney, is working hard to make the Bank of
England the leader in that field; and I know our own Governor of the Bank of
Canada is working hard and hoping, I think, to beat him at that game so that
Canada is a leader in that field. All of that discussion is very much part of
enhancing how we export, because not only do we export the commodities, but we
also export our expertise.

Are you intending to include that sort of issue in your study?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Ringuette, are you asking for more time
to answer that question?

Senator Ringuette: If the house agrees.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Ringuette: Absolutely, because it is all part of the complex
issue that Canadian SMEs, whether they deal with manufactured products or
services, will have to confront — not in silos but in a very comprehensive way.

I feel deeply that this study has to be done, and I think the Senate is a
good institution to do such an in-depth study and to propose solutions to
governments, whether they are provincial, municipal or federal. I think we can
provide a good strategy for the future of our young people.

May I also say that former Senator Hervieux-Payette brought the aspect of
this study to the Banking Committee, and a few people refused. At the end of the
day, I think it was based on partisan reasons, which is absolutely unacceptable.
A good idea coming from whichever senator is still a good idea and should be
moved forward.

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Chaput, calling
the attention of the Senate to the Program to Support Linguistic Rights, the
importance of ensuring public financing of court actions that seek to create
a fair and just society and to the urgent need for the federal government to
re-establish the Court Challenges Program.

Hon. Ghislain Maltais: Mr. Speaker, given the hour, to speak to
Senator Chaput's motion for only a few seconds would be an insult. Therefore, I
will adjourn the debate in my name.

The Senate invite the Government of Canada to mark the 150th anniversary
of Confederation by striking a commemorative medal which, with the
traditional symbols of Canada, would recognize the inestimable contribution
made by aboriginal peoples to the emergence of a better Canada; and

That this medal be distributed, among others, to those persons who
contributed to improving the living conditions of all Canadians in a
significant manner over the last 50 years.

He said: Honourable senators, the subject of this motion involves a
recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, recommendation
68. The motion calls for an initiative to mark the one hundred and fiftieth
anniversary of Confederation that would recognize the significant contribution
of the Aboriginal people.

Honourable senators, I would like to continue my arguments in support of that
motion when our colleague who was the chair of that commission is in attendance.
Therefore, I ask that the rest of my presentation be moved to another date when
that opportunity will arise in the chamber.

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with
the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on the issue of
dementia in our society between November 10 and November 17, 2016, if the
Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been
tabled in the Chamber.

He said: Honourable senators, this is a request that the Standing Senate
Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to release its
forthcoming report on dementia as per the new process that we have in place with
our Communications Directorate. It would exactly parallel what we did with our
very well received report on obesity.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Senator Ogilvie, would you answer a few
questions for me?

Senator Ogilvie: Yes.

Senator Ringuette: Thank you.

Are you also asking permission to provide copies of these reports in an
embargo state? I've seen a memo from Senate Communications to committee chairs
and deputy chairs that embargo copies should be given to the media before they
are provided to senators in the proper way.

Senator Ogilvie: It is my understanding that our intention is that we
would provide a copy to the Senate at the same time that the press conference is
held to discuss with the press the nature of our report, and they would not be
provided with copies prior to our press conference.

Senator Ringuette: We will not be sitting that week, but we will be
back in the Senate Chamber the week afterwards, so what is the urgency? Why not
wait until the senators are here and able to access the report in the
conventional way? I'm sorry, but I find that, yes, in the past the Senate was
somewhat lacking in communication skills. However, communication of the work we
do should not dictate the parliamentary privilege that a senator has.

Therefore, I'm asking you, Senator Ogilvie, as chair of this very important
committee, with this very important report, to take into consideration what I'm
saying. We're starting on a path that I find somewhat dangerous. We seem to be
having more and more reports tabled within a week. I would understand that if
you were tabling a report at the end of July or early August and the committee
had been working in July, when the Senate is not sitting for a considerable
amount of time. However, that is not the case. I am asking, please, for your
consideration of the fact that we need to not set a precedent that communication
of Senate work comes at the expense of our privilege as senators and the hard
work that your committee has done. Thank you.

Senator Ogilvie: Thank you, senator. That is an extremely important
point. I can tell you that it is my hope that the date chosen will be November
15, a Tuesday that the Senate will be sitting, and that we would simply do this
in the morning to get the press coverage and introduce it into the chamber at
the same time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?